Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CITY OF LONDON (SPITALFIELDS MARKET) BILL
(By Order)

BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL (No. 2) BILL
(By Order)

Orders for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered on Thursday 1 February.

BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered on Monday 29 January.

REDBRIDGE LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL
(By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered on Thursday 1 February at Seven o'clock.

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL
(By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered on Thursday 1 February.

VALE OF GLAMORGAN (BARRY HARBOUR) BILL
[Lords] (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read

To be read a Second time on Thursday 1 February.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Public Drinking

Mr. Donald Thompson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what conclusions he has been able to draw from the experimental byelaw banning public drinking in parts of Coventry.

The Minister of State, Home Department (Mr. John Patten): The information available so far from the experiment in Coventry suggests that the byelaw is going extremely well. Research is in hand to assess the impact of the byelaw as fully as possible. Later this year we shall be studying analyses of results of the experiments in all the trial areas before deciding on the next steps.

Mr. Thompson: When my right hon. Friend is considering the evidence, he will remember that most drinking takes place on convivial occasions. However, there are times when that is not so. Will he consider allowing magistrates to have a little flexibility, so that they can ban outside drinking for an hour or two hours on a specific day, at a specific occasion, at a specific time and For a specific purpose?

Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend's suggestion does not surprise me, in the light of his distinguished service to the ministerial group on alcohol misuse. He has made a very interesting suggestion, which had not occurred to me. There is a power already in section 188 of the Licensing Act 1964 for magistrates to take emergency action of that sort when there is a threat of public disorder. However, we shall need to take account of my hon. Friend's constructive suggestion. In addition, it is true that, from time to time, drinking can be very convivial, as I remember with my hon. Friend in his constituency at the Hebden Bridge constitutional club.

Sir Dudley Smith: In view of the Government's sensible liberation of the licensing laws, would it not be prudent to consider banning open air drinking in open spaces in the towns adjacent to Coventry and in inner city areas throughout the country?

Mr. Patten: I am glad that my hon. Friend welcomes our new licensing legislation. We have in hand seven experiments that are examining the possibility of banning drinking in public places. As soon as the experiments are completed towards the end of 1991, we hope to be able to bring forward further suggestions, There may well be room for a radical extension of the scheme, provided that it proves successful.

Birmingham Pub Bombings

Ms. Short: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to complete his consideration of the new evidence on the Birmingham pub bombings case.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Waddington): I am considering the further material


that has been presented to me by a solicitor on behalf of the Birmingham Six, and will decide as soon as possible whether it justifies any intervention on my part.

Ms. Short: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for his answer. I very much hope that he will consider the matter with an open mind, in order to secure justice. These six men were convicted on the basis of two pieces of evidence, the—first, forensic and the second, confessions. By the time that the case returned to the Court of Appeal last time, it was clear that the forensic evidence was rubbish and did not stand, so we are left with only the confessions. The court said that to believe that the men were innocent, it would have to believe—[Interruption.] Mr. Speaker, do you think that you could secure order?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady is going a little wide. She must ask a question.

Ms. Short: No, I am not.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must ask a question.

Ms. Short: I am completely in order, Mr. Speaker. I hope that you will reconsider what I have said. It is a serious matter and Conservative Members should consider it seriously.
The second piece of evidence was based on confessions. The Court of Appeal said that to believe that the men were innocent, it would have to believe that a large number of policemen colluded and fabricated—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must ask a question. She is outlining a case.

Ms. Short: I am asking a question.
The Home Secretary knows that the serious crime squad has now been disbanded and that 11 of the 20 men involved in questioning those men have been disciplined. Hardly anyone in Birmingham believes that they are guilty—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady really must ask a question. It is not fair to other hon. Members.

Ms. Short: I am asking a question, Mr. Speaker.
Will the Home Secretary assure the House that he is interested in securing justice for the six men, and in vindicating our system of justice, as its reputation is being eroded in Britain and internationally by the effects of the case?

Mr. Waddington: Like my predecessor, I shall always be prepared to consider whether any new evidence or consideration of substance may cast doubt on the safety of a conviction. In that light, I am looking at the material furnished by the defendants' solicitor. However, it is an important principle that questions of guilt and innocence are decided by the courts, free of political interference. It is also important to bear in mind that the matter has already been considered at great length by the Court of Appeal, which examined the circumstances in which the alleged confessions were made and the forensic evidence to which the hon. Lady referred.

Dame Jill Knight: Will my right hon. and learned Friend bear it in mind that many people in Birmingham still regard that crime, which killed and injured so many people, with utter horror? There have already been two inquiries and two appeals. One inquiry looked into the

matter with great care. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is outrageous that persons such as the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), who claim to have more evidence, have repeatedly refused to make that evidence available to the police or to the relevant authorities?

Mr. Waddington: My hon. Friend will not be surprised—and the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) is present to hear it—that I find it quite extraordinary that anyone who criticises the convictions should be unwilling to co-operate with the police and to furnish the police with the evidence that he says casts doubt on the convictions. I hope that even at this late stage the hon. Member for Sunderland, South will realise how thoroughly irresponsible is the attitude that he has adopted.

Mr. Mullin: The Home Secretary is obviously unaware that at the request of his predecessor I was interviewed for four hours by two senior civil servants at the Home Office and by an assistant chief constable of the West Midlands, who told me that he was dragged here by the scruff of the neck by the Home Office. May I put it to the Home Secretary that the fact that the men were convicted partly on the basis of confessions obtained while they were in the custody of the West Midlands serious crime squad and that officers of the West Midlands serious crime squad, including a number of those involved in the original investigation, have since been caught red-handed forging confessions, without any other evidence, is sufficient reason to refer the case back to the Court of Appeal?

Mr. Waddington: The first part of the hon. Gentleman's question was mere flannel, because he failed to address himself to the point that I was making. He says that he knows who committed those diabolical offences, yet when asked to disclose their names, he flatly refuses to do so. He knows perfectly well that an inquiry is being carried out in the west midlands by West Yorkshire police, who are considering what has occurred since 1986, which gave rise to the complaints leading to the inquiry. I have made it plain on many occasions that if the Yorkshire police find any evidence or matters that lead them to believe that they should consider earlier matters, they are perfectly at liberty to do so.

Mr. Lawrence: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that if the European Parliament continues to make inquiries into matters such as this, it will give itself a bad name?

Mr. Waddington: I gather that the legal affairs committee of the European Parliament has not yet decided whether to delve into this matter. It is absolutely certain that it is entirely outside the competence of the European Parliament and nothing whatsoever to do with it.

Mr. Hattersley: If the West Yorkshire police, who are inquiring into the conduct of the West Midlands crime squad since 1986, discover that since the offences have been committed by officers who were previously involved in the investigation of the Birmingham pub bombings, will that, in the Home Secretary's view, justify a new inquiry, because it certainly will in our view?

Mr. Waddington: If new matters or considerations are put before me that may cast doubt on the safety of the convictions, I shall look into them.

Mr. Roger King: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the people of Birmingham have put up with the arguments for and against in this case for 15 years, but the issue still will not be decided until all the evidence is available from all the sources, and is not withheld, and a decision is made on whether the case against the Birmingham Six is to be upheld?

Mr. Waddington: The case against the Birmingham Six was upheld; a jury of the land found against them. I remind my hon. Friend that as a result of an inquiry carried out by Devon and Cornwall police, the case was passed to the Court of Appeal, which carried out a most protracted inquiry. Literally days were spent considering the strength of the forensic evidence, and further days were spent considering whether the confessions could be relied on. Therefore, the House should bear those matters in mind before leaping to conclusions. I have said—and I say again—that I know my duty. If new matters and considerations are put before me that might cast doubt on the convictions, I shall take the appropriate action.

Visas

Mr. Haynes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made towards a common visa regime within the European Economic Community after 1992; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Ron Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made towards a common visa regime within the European Economic Community after 1992; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peter Lloyd): European Community immigration Ministers have agreed to a common list of countries whose nationals require a visa to enter a Community country, to the adoption of common questions to be put to applicants for short-stay visas and to exchange information about people to whom visas should not be issued. Those and other relevant developments are described in more detail in the immigration declaration, a copy of which is in the Library.

Mr. Haynes: Does the Minister agree that the refusal of visas for two teenagers to attend their murdered uncle's funeral was nothing short of disgraceful? Will the Minister tell me about the stupid question that they were asked—how many water buffalo their father had? I want to know what will happen in the future. The Government brag about compassion from the Dispatch Box. They should get off their backside and let us have some real action.

Mr. Lloyd: In the case to which the hon. Gentleman referred, the decision was reversed following further investigation, and the two were allowed into this country. The hon. Gentleman will agree that immigration officers have an extremely difficult task, which they set about with objectivity, honesty and fairness. The very fact that last year 3,000 overstayers and illegal immigrants had to be removed shows that a great many people seek to get by immigration officers dishonestly.

Mr. Ron Davies: Can the Minister really justify a visa system for people seeking asylum? Does he recall that when he deported two Tamils back to Sri Lanka, they were

brutally tortured on their return? Does he not think that, in view of that, it would be far better to have an independent appeal system so that all applications can be considered objectively and independently?

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman's last point does not match his first because an appeal system would come into play when an application had been processed and turned down. Visas have been introduced for quite a number of countries in the past few years but still the number of applications for asylum has increased. That suggests that the demand for visas has not prevented people from making asylum claims when they have grounds to do so.

Sir John Stokes: On visas and passports, can my hon. Friend explain why, when a Frenchman returns to his own country he goes through an exit marked "French passports" whereas when an Englishman returns to England he goes through an exit marked "EEC passports"? What has happened to the British passport?

Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend knows more than I do about the notices posted in French entry areas, but "EEC passports" naturally include British passports. British passports remain exactly what they were, as reliable as ever and just what my hon. Friend would like them to be.

Mr. John Greenway: I recognise that the free movement within the Community of European Community nationals is an important part of the single European market, but does not my hon. Friend agree that the combating of drug trafficking and terrorism is of far greater significance? Will he ensure that post-1992 we maintain proper controls against drug traffickers at our ports and airports so that the fight against drug trafficking—as evidenced by the recent seizures, for which the country and the House should be grateful to the police and Customs and Excise officials for their work—can continue?

Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is essential that we should retain our own frontier checks to ensure that we exclude terrorists, drug pushers and illegal immigrants. We intend that that will be done after 1992. Our colleagues in the EEC understand, appreciate and, I believe, support our determination.

Mr. Darling: Does the Minister accept that there is a need to review our procedures before 1992? In that connection, can he tell us why the Government decided to pay compensation to three Kurdish refugees who alleged ill-treatment at the hands of immigration officers when they sought asylum in this country? Will he set up a full independent inquiry, and does he accept that there is now a need for an independent watchdog to look at the immigration service in the light of the growing number of abuses and also in the light of the fact that the amount of information-swapping between European countries is now growing and is beginning to get out of control?

Mr. Lloyd: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's contention. I do not believe that there is a growing number of abuses. We have certainly accepted that in four of the cases under judicial review the original decision should be set aside, but as these are still part of the judicial process, I think that it would be wrong for me to comment further now. If there is anything more to be added at the end of the process, we shall certainly say so.

Miss Emma Nicholson: I thank the Minister for his Department's careful scrutiny and subsequent lifting of two deportation orders on prisoners in Dartmoor—one on grounds of political persecution and the other on personal grounds. Will he confirm that the current system, which is very fair and good, will remain?

Mr. Lloyd: I can confirm that to my hon. Friend. The system works both ways. We hear only when people complain about the results, but there are many applications which, after careful inquiry, we can concede, and we are very happy to do so.

Director of Public Prosecutions

Mr. Andrew Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met the Director of Public Prosecutions; and what was discussed.

Mr. Waddington: I do not meet the Director of Public Prosecutions on a formal basis. Ministerial responsibility for the Crown prosecution service rests with the Attorney-General whom I meet from time to time to discuss matters of mutual concern.

Mr. Smith: Will the Home Secretary discuss with the Director of Public Prosecutions the collapse of the charges against Mr. Kevin Taylor? Does he recognise that public accountability and confidence in the rule of law can now be upheld only by a full and independent inquiry into the whole Stalker affair, both in Greater Manchester and in Northern Ireland, because the public sense that there is something very wrong about the whole business, and the truth must out?

Mr. Waddington: Certainly not. Allegations were made that resulted in Mr. Stalker being sent home on leave and later suspended by the Manchester police authority. In view of those events in Manchester, he was taken off the Northern Ireland inquiry and replaced by Mr. Sampson. The document that Mr. Stalker says that he is going to bring to my office will presumably arrive this afternoon. My officials asked him to produced it earlier, but he could not and I do not criticise him for that. I have no reason whatsoever to believe that anything improper occurred. Indeed, after the suspension of Mr. Stalker in Manchester because of the allegations made against him, it would have been extraordinary if he had remained in charge of the inquiry in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Norris: While it is regrettable that so much public money was devoted to the prosecution, which in this case so sadly lapsed, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that that sad waste of public funds, regardless of the innocence or otherwise of the person accused, is something that happens every day in British courts? Does he further agree that it is far more important that if the chief constable of Greater Manchester wishes to investigate the circumstances, as the DPP has advised him, and wishes to call on officers of another force to assist him in that investigation, it is entirely up to him to do so?

Mr. Waddington: Part of the case against Mr. Taylor rested on documents disclosed by the Co-operative bank as a result of an order made under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which was obtained from the recorder of Manchester, but doubt was cast on the truth of the evidence that was given to get the order. There is no

connection whatsoever between those events in Manchester and the withdrawal of Mr. Stalker from the inquiry in Northern Ireland. Opposition Members should use a little common sense for a change and should not for ever be hunting for conspiracy theories, which are entirely inappropriate in this case.

Mr. Shore: When the Home Secretary next meets the Director of Public Prosecutions, will he raise with him the appalling three-year delay in bringing charges against the police officers who are accused of violence in the Wapping dispute in 1987, which as I have said, is now three years ago—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I believe that the case may be sub judice.

Mr. Shore: All that I am raising with the Home Secretary is the delays in bringing forward the charges. I particularly wanted to ask him this: does he agree that it is unfair to those accused to have such long delays between the charges being brought and the hearing of them in a court? Does he further agree that it is a matter of major grievance for those who have been injured and who have brought the charges against the police? Does not the whole affair greatly undermine the authority of the independent Police Complaints Authority?

Mr. Waddington: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman did not understand the significance of my first reply. Ministerial responsibility for the Crown prosecution service rests with the Attorney-General and that is, of course, why I do not have official meetings with the Director of Public Prosecutions. I have no intention of having any such meetings and there is no reason why I should. When hon. Members talk about Wapping, while it is obviously important that people should be brought to trial as quickly as possible, it is also important that no mythology should surround what in fact happened at Wapping. The police came under regular and violent attack throughout the dispute—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Home Secretary will know better than I do whether this case is sub judice.

Mr. Waddington: I am not talking about a particular date or about 24 January. I am pointing out that over a year no fewer than 162 police officers were injured.

Mr. Shersby: When my right hon. and learned Friend next meets—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House to settle down.

Mr. Shersby: When my right hon. and learned Friend meets the Attorney-General, will he make available to him any information that may come into his possession about the theft, and subsequent leaking to the BBC, of information from the Northamptonshire police about the Wapping incident three years ago? Is he aware that the leaking of such information is an offence under section 86 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984?

Mr. Waddington: I understand that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General is assessing the possible impact of media reports on the criminal proceedings. It is for him to consider what action, if any, should be taken against those responsible.

Mr. Sheerman: Does the Home Secretary accept that the Opposition are not talking about conspiracy theories


either in Northern Ireland or in Manchester? Is he aware that there is a great deal of confusion in the public mind, and certainly in the minds of Opposition and Conservative Members, about what went on in Northern Ireland and in Manchester? Will the Home Secretary, as a first step, come to the House and make a full statement so that he can be asked why £1 million of public money was wasted in the Manchester trial and about what is in the document that Mr. Stalker has presented to him today?

Mr. Waddington: I am not responsible for confusion in the minds of Opposition Members. It is as plain as a pikestaff that if a police officer in charge of an inquiry in Northern Ireland is removed from his duties in the force of which he is a member, he can no longer remain in charge of the inquiry. That is what happened in this case. After the removal of Mr. Stalker from the inquiry in Northern Ireland, Mr. Colin Sampson took over his duties. Anyone who has followed the history of the inquiry thereafter will know that Mr. Sampson did not shirk his duty. Hon. Members will recall what he eventually reported to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and the resulting statement by my right hon. and learned Friend to the House.

Young Offenders

Mr. Ian Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to bring forward his proposal to make parents liable for the criminal activities of young offenders.

Mr. Waddington: Our proposals on parental responsiblity will be included in a White Paper setting out our plans for criminal justice legislation which will be published in the next few weeks.

Mr. Taylor: Such proposals will be extremely welcome. Will my right hon. and learned Friend note the belief of Conservative Members that parental responsibility is a vital part of family life and that the exercise of that responsibility is more likely to keep families together than allow them to drift apart? Will he therefore oblige parents to turn up in court if youngsters are brought to trial? If they are sentenced, will he make parents liable for the fines, should they be levied, but will he also ensure that they are means-tested fines?

Mr. Waddington: All right hon. and hon. Members will agree that one of the first duties of parents is to instil in the child an understanding of the difference between right and wrong, and to teach the child to respect and abide by the law and not to lie, cheat, steal or bully. There should be absolute agreement about that. It is slightly astonishing, therefore, that anyone should discuss the problem of what reforms may be necessary in our criminal justice system without acknowledging the central part of the parents. The so-called White Paper issued by the Labour party is entirely silent on this matter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) is right. I believe that parents should have to come to court with their children when their children face charges. I also believe that the parents' means should be taken into consideration when a decision is made on the appropriate fine to be imposed on the child, so that if the child does not pay, the parents have to pay a realistic penalty in the child's stead.

Mr. Rooker: Will the Home Secretary take this opportunity to condemn the bailiffs Crilley and Sons, who earlier this week were reported as saying that after the introduction of the poll tax, when they go hunting for youngsters to get their goods and chattels, and the householder says that they cannot come in, although they, the bailiffs, have no right to enter their staff should try to get inside the house because, "once you are in you cannot be thrown out"? Is it right and proper for bailiffs to operate in that way when seeking young people?

Mr. Waddington: I cannot for the life of me see what that has to do with parental reponsibility.

Mr. Alexander: Is it not the case that by making parents criminally liable and thereby inculcating in them a sense of responsibility it is highly likely that we shall have far fewer youngsters sleeping rough in our streets at night?

Mr. Waddington: The possibility of making parents criminally liable has been considered, but I do not think that it is necessary. What is important is that parents should be reminded all the time of their responsibility when their child falls foul of the law. Parents can be reminded of that most efficaciously by insisting on their presence and by taking their means into consideration when deciding on the fine to be imposed on the child.

Mr. Randall: Is the Secretary of State aware that much informed opinion outside the House is concerned about a number of statements on this matter by the Government? What seems to come through is the Government's wish to punish the parents of children whose behaviour is not acceptable to them. Does he realise that that could make the relationship between children and parents far more difficult, when that is the last thing we want? Will he give consideration to the Labour party's position, which is to base such a scheme on the Scottish children's panel which has a successful record?

Mr. Waddington: It would be best to draw a veil over the emanations from the Labour party. The proposals that I am outlining will encourage parents to offer more support to their children and to take a constructive interest in their lives.

Mr. Malins: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the level of juvenile crime worries hon. Members on both sides of the House? Does he further agree that it is the duty of a parent to spend time with his or her child and to provide an atmosphere of love, security and respect for the law? Does he further agree that those qualities are sadly missing from today's society? May I therefore urge him to bring forward quickly proposals to make parents responsible for the fines of their children?

Mr. Waddington: My hon. Friend has heard what I have said. He and I are obviously thinking along the same lines, but the House will have to be patient and wait until our White Paper is published. That is not so far away.

Prison Officers Association

Mr. Cox: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met officials of the Prison Officers Association; and what subjects were discussed.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Mellor): My right hon. and learned Friend met members of the


Prison Officers Association on 18 December. The terms and conditions of service for prison officers, resources, the possibility of agency status for the prison service and the possible use of the private sector to escort prisoners and to run remand centres were discussed.

Mr. Cox: I note the Minister's reply. Is he aware that Fresh Start, which has been working in the penal system for some time, is coming under increasing criticism not only from the Prison Officers Association but from prison governors because it has not resulted, as we and they were led to believe that it would, in extra staffing? If it is the policy of the Home Office to get inmates out of their cells—many of them are banged up for 20 hours or more a day—into work projects and into association, how will that be done without extra staffing?

Mr. Mellor: I hesitate to take issue with the hon. Gentleman because I know of his close interest in prison work, but over the past two years there has been a net increase in prison officer staff of almost 2,500. That is entirely consistent with the Government's commitments under Fresh Start. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will let me have further details of his comments so that we may try to remove the difference between us.

Mr. Conway: Has my hon. and learned Friend had representations from the Prison Officers Association about the delays in processing applications to purchase homes from prison officers in service? Is he aware that for three years I have had lengthy correspondence with his Department about the matter? Prison officers in Shrewsbury have asked me now to refer it to the parliamentary ombudsman because of the disgraceful delays in his Department.

Mr. Mellor: I am sorry that up to now we have not been able to give my hon. Friend satisfaction. I shall look at the papers personally to see whether we can do better.

Mr. Maclennan: Does the Minister agree with the premise of the Justice report, in the name of Lady Ralphs, that prison should be a penalty of last resort? In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the guideline sentences from the Court of Appeal and their failure to deal with the problem of disparity of sentencing and overlong sentences, will the Minister and the Government, in the forthcoming White Paper, consider favourably the Justice proposal for a sentencing council and the introduction of sentencing guidelines?

Mr. Mellor: It is common ground that prison should be a sentence of last resort. I think that the hon. Gentleman will find a great deal to his satisfaction on that in the forthcoming White Paper. He may be interested to know that the answer to a question, which unfortunately has been unstarred but would have been due for an answer this session, reveals that the proportion of prisoners who have been sentenced for what we all regard as the most serious offences—crimes of violence, sex crimes and so on—is 50 per cent. as against 33 per cent. in 1979, suggesting that we are making progress in our legitimate ambition to ensure that prison sentences are reserved for those who commit the most heinous crimes.

Special Constables

Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the number of special constables now attached to police forces in England and Wales; and what steps he will take to encourage chief constables to recruit further, particularly among ethnic minority communities.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: At the end of June 1989 there were 15,625 special constables in England and Wales; 453 of the total were from the ethnic minority communities. We shall discuss further measures to improve recruitment with members of the police advisory board at its next meeting in February.

Mr. Pawsey: I thank my hon. Friend for his helpful reply. Does he agree that special constables should not be regarded in any way as second-class coppers? Will he confirm that there is no ceiling on the recruitment of specials? Is there any area where recruitment is difficult? Will he consider a major national campaign to get more specials to assist the police with policing?

Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend is right. Special constables are not second-class policemen; they are first-class citizens who give freely of their time to assist and support the police at points of unusual pressure. There is no ceiling on the number of special constables, and we certainly want more to be recruited. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that we are considering the idea of national advertising. We have run a pilot test in Suffolk and we shall be evaluating its results shortly.

Birmingham Pub Bombings

Mr. Sedgemore: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met the Foreign Minister of Ireland to discuss the Birmingham pub bombings case; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Waddington: I met Mr. Collins on 8 January for discussion on a range of subjects. Mr. Collins asked me about the further material which had been submitted to me on behalf of the Birmingham Six. I told him that I will decide as soon as possible whether that further material justifies any intervention on my part.

Mr. Sedgemore: In view of the indelible and dishonourable stain left on the British legal system by the conduct of the Court of Appeal in this case, could not the Home Secretary make amends by telling the British public and the Irish Foreign Secretary that he will release the Birmingham Six forthwith and then invite the Director of Public Prosecutions to present the case to the Court of Appeal in such a way that their Lordships have no option but to allow the appeal of those innocent people?

Mr. Waddington: The hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense. The House knows perfectly well what my duty is. I have already made it absolutely plain that if new evidence or new considerations that were not before the court of trial were brought before me, I should be prepared to consider such new evidence. If it cast doubt on the convictions I would not be afraid to take the proper action. However, it is absolutely improper and ridiculous of the hon. Gentleman to cast aspersions on the Court of Appeal, which carried out a long and careful examination


into the evidence given in the case, including the confessions and the circumstances in which they were made, and the forensic evidence.

PRIME MINISTER

Mr. Fatchett: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 25 January.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Fatchett: Now that Lord Justice Taylor has joined football supporters, players and the police in condemning the Prime Minister's ludicrous ID scheme, will the Prime Minister confirm that is her intention to drop the proposal? Will she say whether anybody in the country, apart from her, thought that it it was a good idea in the first place?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary received Lord Justice Taylor's report on 19 January. It is obviously right that the House should have the complete report before it is discussed. It will be printed and published as soon as possible—I hope by Monday—so that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary can then make a statement about it.

Mr. Fishburn: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 25 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Fishburn: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the increasingly unsatisfactory state of leasehold law in this country? It is unsatisfactory for hundreds of thousands of flat owners and landlords alike. Will she give a fair wind to the Law Commission's draft legislation to permit flats to be owned on freehold? That reform has already been undertaken in Australia, Canada and the United States, and is overdue in England and Wales if we are to have full home-owning communities in our inner cities as well as elsewhere.

The Prime Minister: I am aware that, in the view of many, the present law on the matter is unsatisfactory. The Law Commission is continuing its work and we hope to have an opportunity soon to consider its proposals. We shall then bring forward any measures that we think necessary.

Mr. Kinnock: Does not the shambles over the football identity card scheme prove that the Prime Minister's personal obsessions and ignorance are not a sound basis for Government legislation?

The Prime Minister: I think that the right hon. Gentleman was trumped by one of his hon. Friends who has asked that question. As the right hon. Gentleman has repeated it, may I say that the House should have the full published report, with all its recommendations—from hooliganism to safety—and have a chance to consider it. We hope to get it printed and published by Monday, which is very quick, after which my right hon. and learned Friend

the Home Secretary will make a statement. I should have hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would agree that it is best to read the whole report.

Mr. Kinnock: We look forward to the statement. Since this scheme was, without doubt, the Prime Minister's obsession and her scheme, does she agree that it would be appropriate if she came to the House next week and made the statement about the scheme? Meanwhile, may I invite her to make a little history this afternoon and simply say that she was wrong?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. and learned Friend will make a statement on the whole of the Taylor report. In the meantime, the right hon. Gentleman has the assurances that we gave to the House during the passage of the Bill. He knows that the measures that we have brought forward over the years to restrict the sale of alcohol at football grounds, to impose exclusion orders, to have closed-circuit television at most league grounds, to have segregation of football supporters, and the statement that the former Home Secretary made immediately after Hillsborough that football grounds should become all-seater stadia, have had an effect and have improved matters. There is a good deal more to do and we must consider what Lord Justice Taylor has said before coming to a conclusion.

Mr. Kilfedder: In view of my right hon. Friend's commendable concern for the environment, will she consult other Heads of Government about air pollution, which has been highlighted in the latest report of the World Watch Institute? It has pointed out that one fifth of the world's population, including the United Kingdom, is adversely affected by air pollution which causes the death of about 50,000 people a year in the United States?

The Prime Minister: I understand my hon. Friend's concern about air pollution caused by aircraft. We usually discuss this issue at international forums because we must deal with it on the basis of an international network. It will probably come up at the next economic summit and at future European Community summits. We do not have the full report on the matter. We shall consider it most earnestly when we receive it.

Mr. Ashton: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 25 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Ashton: Is it not a fact that despite the Prime Minister's wriggling, Lord Justice Taylor has said that her law is an ass? She brought in a verdict of guilty before she had heard all the witnesses. Is it not also a fact that the right hon. Lady has consistently confused safety with hooliganism to score points on a law and order issue and try to make political capital out of a disaster?
Will the Prime Minister now give two promises? First, will she drop the demand that British teams cannot play in Europe until we have an ID card scheme, and support their application to play in Europe? Secondly, will she try to find a way to use the £250 million tax that she collects from football pools to pay for ground safety and give to football the same sort of cash as she gives to the ballet, the opera, the arts, museums and all the other upper-class pastimes?

The Prime Minister: Perhaps it would have been better had the hon. Gentleman waited until he had read the report. In the meantime, he will be aware of the assurance given during the passage of the Bill that there would be two opportunities for both Houses of Parliament to debate any football membership scheme.
On the question of finance, the hon. Gentleman will be aware of the considerable sums spent on transfer payments, which last year amounted to about £70 million. He will also be aware of the considerable sums that come to the football clubs from television—about £11 million from ITV last year and about £6 million from the BBC—and of the further sums given by the football pools for the use of the fixture lists. Those are very considerable sums, added to those that come from the Football Trust. It is perhaps a pity that more has not been spent on the stadiums in the past by the football organisations. Perhaps they will consider spending a bigger proportion on behalf of the people who come to watch football rather than on transfer fees and other things.

Mr. Gill: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 25 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Gill: May I remind my right hon. Friend of her answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) on 16 January, and urge upon her the necessity to dismantle green currencies, which are causing British farmers unacceptable losses and give rise to inadequate investment, which in its turn is fast eroding their ability to compete in the future?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is correct. It is our policy that all the green currencies shall be dismantled by the end of 1992. They do not give our farmers a fair deal. We are in favour of their dismantling, as are most other people in the European Community. I hope that they will be fully dismantled and that those opposed to it will nevertheless agree to its implementation.

Mr. Ashdown: Now that the Prime Minister has had the difference between fantasy and reality forcefully pointed out to her on the identity card scheme, will she assure the House that she will not penalise the banks for pointing out to her that her student loans scheme is equally flawed and equally foolish? After many years of being told that she is not for turning, have we reached the point where the lady is at least for learning?

The Prime Minister: The student loans scheme will enable a number of people to go to university who otherwise could not do so. It will enable them to have loans guaranteed by the Government if their parents do not meet their contribution towards the student grant. Many of them will welcome it. It is a disappointment that the banks are not taking part. That will not damage the scheme, but merely make it more difficult for students to have access to the bank branches.

Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 25 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Pawsey: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is genuine concern about the political and economic

implications of the reunification of Germany? Does she further accept that there is likely to be even more concern surrounding the break-up of the Soviet empire? Will she therefore assure the House, in her usual forthright and robust way, that the defence of the United Kingdom remains safe in her hands?

The Prime Minister: I agree with the implication behind my hon. Friend's question—that times of great uncertainty are just those times when we need to keep our defences, both conventional and nuclear. They will be safe in the hands of this Government and NATO.
With regard to German reunification, the Strasbourg summit of the Economic Community, fully supported by Germany, agreed that that could come about only having regard to the other obligations that have been assumed the four-power agreement on Germany and the Helsinki accord. Reunification could take place only against a background of stability and security, and having regard to NATO, too.
With a regard to the problems that my hon. Friend mentioned—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister must be allowed to answer the question.

The Prime Minister: With regard to my hon. Friend's point about the Soviet Union, we all have great sympathy with Mr. Gorbachev and the problems that he is facing. We fully support him in his progress towards economic and political reform.

Mr. Foot: May I offer the Prime Minister some assistance with the fiasco of the football identity cards? Why does she not follow the example that she set with so many previous fiascos, and put the blame on somebody else? What about the Leader of the House? Should she not ask him why he did not faithfully report to her that, on every occasion that this matter has been debated in the House, the Government's case has been torn to tatters? Or is that what the previous Leader of the House told her, and is that why he had the chop?

The Prime Minister: May I gently inform the right hon. Gentleman that I no more need his assistance now than I did when he was Leader of the Opposition and had the chop?

Mr. Anthony Coombs: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 25 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Coombs: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the very existence of a democratic society depends upon the general and total acceptance of the rule of law? Is it not unacceptable and damaging for anyone—irrespective of political opinion—and especially for hon. Members of this House to refuse to pay the community charge, which has been passed into law and is enshrined in an Act of Parliament?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. The rule of law is indivisible—one cannot pick and choose those to obey and those to disobey. That would be anarchy. We are a democracy. The law was passed by Parliament, in full Session, and should be obeyed.

Business of the House

Dr. John Cunningham: May I ask the Leader of the House to tell us the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 29 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Employment Bill.
Motion relating to the Welfare Food (Amendment) Regulations.
TUESDAY 30 JANUARY—Opposition Day (4th Allotted Day). Until about seven o'clock, there will be a debate entitled "People trapped in poverty". Afterwards there will be a debate entitled "Implications of the Taylor report for safety at football grounds". Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.
Motions relating to private medical insurance regulations. Details will be given in the Official Report.
WEDNESDAY 31 JANUARY—Opposition Day (5th Allotted Day). Until about seven o'clock, there will be a debate entitled "The European Community and developments in eastern Europe". Afterwards there will be a debate entitled "Small businesses and the self-employed". Both debates will arise on motions in the name of the Social and Liberal Democrats.
THURSDAY I FEBRUARY—Until seven o'clock, debate on procedure motions. Details will be given in the Official Report.
Remaining stages of the Civil Aviation Authority (Borrowing Powers) Bill.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
FRIDAY 2 FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 5 FEBRUARY—There will be a debate on the Royal Navy on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

[Relevant documents:

Tuesday 30 January

Private Medical Insurance (Disentitlement to Tax Relief and Approved Benefits) Regulations (SI 1989, No. 2389).

Private Medical Insurance (Tax Relief) Regulations (SI 1989, No. 2387).

Thursday 1 February

Procedure Motions:

Private Members' Motions

Motions for Leave to Bring in Bills, Etc.

New Writs

Public Petitions

Motions for Leave to Bring in Bills, Etc. (Budget Day).]

Dr. Cunningham: Given the continuing serious damage to manufacturing industry, business generally and family incomes caused by the Government's economic policy failures and the continuing high interest rates, will the Leader of the House say when we can have a debate on the Government's public expenditure plans and the economy?
Next Thursday's business is an attempt to create a new climate for private Members' time during business in the House. Will the Leader of the House assure us that the

Consumer Guarantees Bill, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones), will not be blocked by Ministers in the House tomorrow?
Is the Leader of the House aware that, during the last Session of this Parliament, against all reasonable evidence and argument, we were obliged to spend 110 hours of parliamentary time and great sums of public money on the Football Spectators Act, which is nothing more than the unreasoning obsession of a domineering and out-of-touch Prime Minister?
Is it not now abundantly clear that Ministers, and the Prime Minister in particular, ought to have taken the advice and waited for Lord Justice Taylor's report so that all that parliamentary time and all that public money might not have been expended needlessly? In addition to the promised statement on Monday, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman assure us that no further work will be carried out, at public expense, on football authorities to be set up under the legislation or on the identity card scheme? Will he ensure that, when his right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary comes to the House on Monday, he will make it clear whether or not the Government have proposals to compensate football clubs for the large amounts of unnecessary expenditure that they have been obliged to incur?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friends will have ample opportunity to advance those last points, both by way of questions to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on Monday and, of course, in the debate for which they have asked on Tuesday, which I have already announced. I hope that they will take into account the underlying and most important aspect of all this—the fact that there is widespread, deep national anxiety about the problems to which this legislation was directed, that the problems are much more wide-ranging than those touched upon by the Taylor report, and that a very heavy responsibility rests on those whose duty it will be to implement the recommendations of the report and on the House generally for remedying those situations. All those matters can be investigated in the debates that will take place next week.
So far as the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) is concerned, the hon. Gentleman will have to await the outcome of tomorrow's proceedings.
As to the debate on the public expenditure White Paper, we have already this week had one excellent debate, in which the Chancellor very effectively presented his economic policies to the House and to the country. As I told the hon. Gentleman last week, I hope to arrange, in the relatively near future, yet another debate of that quality on the public expenditure White Paper.

Mr. Robert Hayward: Will my right hon. and learned Friend please give consideration to early-day motion 346?
[That this House notes that 89 per cent. of the doctors in Brentwood and Ongar who responded to a Liberal Democrat survey of general practitioners believe that patients will lose from the proposed health service review and that the same percentage are against general practitioners being able to buy hospital care for their patients in the hospital of their choice, and that 89 per cent. of them also believe that the reforms will place restrictions on their ability to cater for patients with special needs.]
Will he also note that early-day motion 347 has been withdrawn today? Will we have an opportunity in Opposition time next Wednesday to discuss the remaining motion on the Order Paper in the context of the SLD motion? The vast majority of hon. Members consider the presence of either of those motions on the Order Paper at any time distasteful.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. The whole House should welcome the fact that early-day motion 347 has been withdrawn. I am sure that the House does not need to be reminded that, although these motions are in order, there are well known conventions about the way in which hon. Members deal with each other in relation to their constituencies. I think that hon. Members on all sides would deprecate the practice of using early-day motions of this kind in the manner complained of.

Mr. Ron Leighton: Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 367?
[That this House calls upon the Secretary of State for the Home Department to publish the report of the Northamptonshire Police into the policing of Wapping on 24th January 1987.]
The territorial support groups at Wapping were out of control and acted indiscriminately and with sickening brutality and violence. Since then, there has been a three-year cover-up. Does not this show that the idea of the accountability of the Metropolitan Police to this House is a myth, that senior police officers are not answerable to anybody—have, indeed, appeared to do what they like—that they act outside the law, and that when things go wrong, they are not accountable to anybody? Will the Leader of the House please see that this report is published as soon as possible, so that we can have an early debate?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman does not present a fair statement of the position regarding the accountability of the police and the police authorities. This was a confidential report that was prepared and submitted to the independent Police Complaints Authority, the body to which police authorities are accountable. Subject to the need not to prejudice outstanding criminal proceedings—that, too, is a legitimate consideration—the authority intends to publish a full summary of the report, in accordance with its usual practice, as soon as possible. It is right, however, that these other matters should be taken into account. Once the report has been published, the question of a debate can be considered.

Sir Anthony Grant: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the infernal increasing nuisance, particularly to the people of Cambridgeshire, of these wretched acid house parties, the menance of which is growing in many parts of the country, and certainly in Cambridgeshire? Can my right hon. and learned Friend assure me that the Government will place no impediment in the way of the excellent private Member's Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Mr. Bright) which is designed to stamp out this menace?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: As I have told the House before, the Government share my hon. Friend's concern about the

impact of acid house parties. They made an impact some months ago in my constituency. We shall certainly give the most favourable consideration possible to the Bill to which my hon. Friend refers.

Sir David Steel: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement to be made next week by the Secretary of State for Health on a report today that attendances at a big chain of opticians have dropped by 36 per cent. since charges were introduced nine months ago? Does he recognise that this is something else about which the Government were warned by hon. Members on both sides of the House and that a statement is needed?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The right hon. Gentleman draws attention to one aspect of that matter, as he sees it. It is open to him and to his party to raise matters of that kind in the House in the ordinary way.

Mr. Tony Marlow: As the Chinese Government have said that they will make it more difficult for those who are issued with British passports to remain in Hong Kong after 1997, when it is the Government's intention to encourage those people to stay in Hong Kong, could we have an early statement as to the necessary changes in Government policy—in particular how the new policy will accord with the Conservative party's manifesto commitments at the last five general elections?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary addressed that question with clarity and distinction in the House only a few days ago.

Mr. Jack Ashley: Is the Leader of the House aware that there is an incredible backlog of 90,000 people injured by criminals, who are waiting for the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board to assess their claims, some of which are urgent? Does the Leader of the House agree that their cases demand immediate attention? May we have a debate next week, please?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The right hon. Gentleman characteristically brings his question fully within the rules of order by asking for a debate next week on the subject. I cannot promise him a debate. However, I understand his continuing concern about the effective operation of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. I shall therefore draw the matter to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: To return to early-day motion 346 and the withdrawn early-day motion 347, is it not totally contemptible that Liberal Members should have exploited the serious illness of two of our hon. Friends? Is there no depth to which the Liberal party will not sink in order to grovel for votes? Should not the whole House condemn the Liberal party? May we have a debate on the subject, in which we can make it quite clear that we are appalled that on their Supply day next week they have not chosen to talk about that early-day motion which they have so contemptibly tabled?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend has made his point forcefully, and I think that his view is widely shared by hon. Members in all parts of the House. When I answered the original question about the matter, I noticed, as other hon. Members will have done, the right hon. Member for


Tweeddale, Etterick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel)—the erstwhile leader of the Liberal party—nodding his head in agreement with what I was saying. Therefore, I half expected, when he rose to his feet to question me, that he would have made the very point that my hon. Friend has just made. There are still two further opportunities for that.
This is a serious matter. We are talking about our colleagues in this House. All of us are fair game for motions and comments from every direction, subject to certain conventions. In my judgment, and in the judgment of the whole House, what has happened in this case goes beyond those conventions. I am glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman is nodding his head in agreement.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Although I welcome the facts that the Government will be making a statement on the Taylor report on Monday and that there will be a debate initiated by the Opposition on Tuesday, is the Leader of the House aware that for some of us it is not simply a matter of ID cards? More than 90 people in my area were killed in the Hillsborough disaster, and some of us want a full day's debate on the matter.
It is not just a matter of ID cards, as some of us argued against them from the start. We want to ensure that never again will there be such a disaster in which people from Liverpool and elsewhere are killed at football matches. We want a full debate on safety and not just on ID cards. My right hon. and hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench should have asked some of us before they agreed to a half-day debate, as some of us feel that a full day's debate is necessary.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Nobody under-estimates the importance of the matter to the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues who represent Liverpool. However, it is a matter of general national importance. That is why so much time of the House was devoted to it in the last Session, despite the complaints of Opposition Members. The debate next Tuesday will provide an early opportunity to consider the matter very widely in terms of the Opposition motion. We can consider thereafter what further action, by way of debate or anything else, will be necessary.

Mr. Bill Walker: Can my right hon. and learned Friend arrange an early opportunity for the house to debate the constitutional position of Scotland vis-a-vis the rest of the United Kingdom? The Scottish press is full of stories that taxes in Scotland will be different from those in England and Wales. That is a constitutional matter. There is also the problem of Scotland becoming a guinea pig. Before the Labour party gets the chop for attempting all those things, will my right hon. and learned Friend arrange for an early debate on the matter?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand my hon. Friend's continuing concern for the welfare of his constituents and the people of Scotland. The press north and south of the border is regularly full of reports of taxes in the minds of Opposition Members. The nation should beware of them in all parts of the United Kingdom.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Is the Leader of the House aware that the Scottish Office has now published a consultation document on the management of the North sea white fisheries in 1990? As that document contains complex and detailed recommendations on technical

conservation measures, including substantial lay-offs of the fisheries this year without any compensation, and as those recommendations have to go to the European Commission very quickly, will the Leader of the House arrange next week at least a statement of the Government's view, or preferably a debate?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot give such a precise undertaking at this stage, but I shall certainly draw the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to the views expressed by the hon. Lady.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: Could my right hon. and learned Friend arrange for an early Government statement on the Channel tunnel, in view of the financial irregularities and other matters disclosed in today's edition of Contract Journal? Is my right hon. Friend aware that Mr. Peter Costain, chairman of the Costain construction company, wrote a letter to the chairman of Eurotunnel accusing Eurotunnel of having made a statement to shareholders which was
incomplete, inaccurate, and calculated to mislead"?
As that statement resulted in approximately £50 million-worth of gains to Eurotunnel's shares immediately after its publication, and as the statement now appears to have been misleading and inaccurate, does my right hon. and learned Friend not consider that it would be appropriate to draw these matters to the attention of the regulatory authorities, such as the stock exchange and the Department of Trade and Industry?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: As my hon. Friend realises from the nature of his question, the Channel tunnel is a private sector project and the matters to which he refers arise between the various contractors involved. If and in so far as they deserve further investigation, I shall bring them to the attention of my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Trade and Industry and for Transport and the regulatory authorities.

Miss Kate Hoey: Is the Leader of the House aware of the increasing anger throughout the international world about the Prime Minister overruling the Secretary of State for the Environment and allowing the stockpile of ivory in Hong Kong to be sold? Is he aware that half that ivory was illegally poached? As we have lost all credibility with the international environmental movement, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that a statement should be made, enabling us properly to debate the issue, to ensure that the African elephant does not become extinct because of the increasing awkwardness of the Prime Minister in refusing to listen to her Secretary of State for the Environment?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The whole House is concerned about the preservation of he world's elephant stock and understands the importance of the matter, which was not well stated by the hon. Lady. The exception made for Hong Kong is of limited duration and applies to stock already there. It is entirely without prejudice to the more extensive measures designed to ensure the protection of the species.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: My right hon. and learned Friend will not be aware of the tragic case of my constituent, Martin Allsop—he was married, aged 22 and had a child of six months—who was knocked down and


killed on a zebra crossing by a drunken driver. At Maidstone Crown court last week, the driver of the car was found guilty of careless driving, fined £250 and banned for two years. In sharing my constituents' disgust at that lamentable sentence, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that time should be made available for the issue of the sentencing of drink-driving offences to be dealt with properly in the House in a thorough debate?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Nobody can doubt the seriousness of the case raised by my hon. Friend, and everyone will extend their sympathy to his constituent's family. I hope that there will be an opportunity before too long for the matter that my hon. Friend raised to be debated, but I cannot say precisely when that will be.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: Will the Leader of the House consider arranging an early debate, or at least a statement from the appropriate Secretary of State, perhaps next week, on the serious issue of the costs to many thousands of people arising from coal-mining subsidence? Many millions of pounds are in the claim pipeline. The Select Committee on Energy reported to the House three years ago, when the time scale for claims had been considerably longer than three or four years. Will he say whether British Coal will at last be moved to act by some pressure from the House or from the Secretary of State?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot promise an instant reaction, because the report was made some time ago. I shall certainly arrange to discuss it at an early date with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy.

Sir Dudley Smith: As a fair number of people, some of whom should know better, are beginning to believe that perhaps, given the destabilisation in eastern Europe, NATO and the Western European Union are superfluous, does my right hon. and learned Friend think it important to have a debate before long on the future of NATO and the Western European Union and our involvement in them?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have no doubt that the general importance of the subject raised by my hon. Friend is well understood by Conservative Members. He may have an opportunity to raise the matter in next Wednesday's debate, or conceivably in the debate on the following Monday.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: May we have two statements next week on theft? First, may we have a statement on the Government's position following the latest collapse of the insider dealing legislation, which is now a complete shambles after the case at Southwark Crown court earlier this week, which was clearly closely connected with the Government? We need to know whether it will ever be possible to change that legislation so that at least a successful prosecution can be brought for what is out-and-out theft, although the victims are not clearly identifiable.
Secondly, may we have a statement on the organised loophole that the Government deliberately inserted in the poll tax legislation to allow private landlords to pocket the rates of their tenants but not reduce their combined rent and rates? It is not fair that housing benefit should be paid on that basis or that private landlords should be allowed

to pocket the rates. That cannot be right, yet that loophole was knowingly left in the Bill, as we know, because it was raised with Ministers in Committee. There is just enough time to clear the matter up. If we do not, private landlords will pocket tens of millions of pounds illegally from 1 April this year.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am not able to answer speeches made at business questions; nor is it my function to do so. On the hon. Gentleman's first point, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will be answering questions on Monday and the hon. Gentleman may have the opportunity of raising the matter with him then.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that Members should ask one question and—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Order. I also remind the House that we have an important debate today. I would therefore ask for brief questions to the Leader of the House.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Will my right hon. and learned Friend say when we shall have a chance to support the Government's wholly justified policy on Hong Kong?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot tell my hon. Friend when there will be a further opportunity to debate this matter, but it has been the subject of a recent report to the House by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who will no doubt keep the House informed.

Ms. Joan Walley: May I press the Leader of the House once again for an opportunity to discuss the Crown immunity that exists in this building, especially in view of the news that Central Lobby has just had to be closed because of the danger posed by the weather? In the interests of the health, safety and welfare of all those who work in the building including our employees, is it not time that we had a debate on Crown immunity?

Mr. Joseph Ashton: We should adjourn the House—it might fall in.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: As the hon. Lady knows, I am already considering particular anxieties—for example, in relation to insurance for Members' employees. She also asked about safety today. A sizeable piece of masonry was blown from the Central Tower into the corner of the hut on the roof down to an inner courtyard. There were no casualties, and that hut was cleared of all occupants. Central Lobby is also closed until the Property Services Agency has ensured that there is no more risk of danger from the Central Tower, and the Parliamentary Works Officer is investigating that with the utmost urgency. I must, however, express the view and hope that today's weather conditions are entirely exceptional.

Mr. Jerry Hayes: I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend will be distressed to learn that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) was bitten by a rottweiler early this morning and my right hon. and learned Friend will no doubt wish to give his best wishes for a speedy recovery to my hon. Friend—and to the dog. This raises an important matter, because people are buying ferocious animals for no


other reason than as a status symbol. If not controlled, such animals can maim and savage young children. May we have a debate on this matter reasonably soon?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The whole House will join me in expressing sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark), although we may have reservations about the dog. The matter was considered by the House during the passage of legislation last summer. We shall wait to see whether my hon. Friend feels impelled to bring the matter back to the Floor of the House on his return.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Mon): Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Wales or the Secretary of State for Transport to make a statement to the House in early course about Rail Freight Distribution, a subsidiary of British Rail, and in particular about the conduct of a container service between Holyhead and Dublin which has recently opened and which is being run with a German crew and a German ship? Many of us who are concerned about local employment have been seeking information from the company but it appears to be stonewalling. It will not answer my letters or even return my telephone calls. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman ensure that the company undertakes its responsibilities seriously? It is answerable to the Secretary of State for Transport, and he should conduct an immediate inquiry into its activities.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I can certainly ensure that that point is brought to the attention of my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Transport and for Wales.

Mr. Humfrey Malins: Will my right hon. Friend find the time soon for a debate on traffic levels, the proposed new road schemes and on public transport generally in south London? Many of my constituents in Norbury, SW16, are worried by the threat to their homes and businesses from possible changes to the A23, so an early opportunity to debate those matters would be greatly appreciated.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I can understand my hon. Friend's anxiety to represent his constituents' anxieties on that matter. My constituency is not very much further down the A23. My hon. Friend can, of course, seek the opportunity of an Adjournment debate, but I shall bring his points to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport in any case.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: In the course of next week's business, does the Leader of the House intend to lay "forthwith" orders relating to statutory instruments that were taken in Committee? If he does, does he contemplate laying them and asking the House to approve them before the associated Official Report of the Committees are available? Would it not be conducive to the good ordering of the House if such orders were not laid until the reports were available, thus avoiding some of the difficulties experienced by the House last night?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I do not detect that the House had any serious practical difficulty last night on this matter. It has been normal practice for such orders to be laid before the House on the day after the meeting of the Committee. Normally the printing and publication of the report is compatible with that. However, at a time when there is heavy pressure on the resources available for transcribing

and printing the necessary material, it has turned out that the report has not been available. I shall certainly see whether anything can be done to remedy that disjointed quality, which is something that we should try to avoid.

Mr Edward Leigh: Notwithstanding the report in today's Times that plans are to be prepared in secret, is my right hon. and learned Friend convinced that sufficient Supply days are available to the Opposition to enable them to furnish the House with details of their alternative to the community charge before the bills are issued, or are the Opposition to be allowed to continue to hide under the dangerous maxim that their duty is merely to oppose, not to propose?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I fear that it will prove a difficult task for many of us to discover the answer to the question so rightly raised by my hon. Friend. We have had two debates on the general subject in the past few weeks and neither has added to our enlightenment about the Labour party's plans or proposals. Long may it remain like that, because the British people well understand it.

Mr. Harry Ewing: As the Leader of the House knows, Scottish Question Time, which is due next week, is televised live by Scottish Television. The right hon. and learned Gentleman also knows that the Lothian health board has suggested that it should attract sponsorship for operations. However, is it true that the Scottish Office has purchased a commercial break for transmission during Scottish Question Time to suggest that people should have their gall bladders removed, sponsored by Michael Forsyth Associates, and get really stitched up?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman's ingenuity may deserve some kind of commendation, but he should not raise that topic on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Harry Greenway: May we have a debate next week on early-day motions 303 and—

Mr. Speaker: 303—one early-day motion, please.

Mr. Greenway: Well, 303 or 313—either will do.

Mr. Speaker: One or the other, but not both.

Mr. Greenway: May we have a debate next week on early-day motion 303?
[That this House abhors the prospect of a resumption in the export of horses and ponies to continental abattoirs after 1992; urges the European Community (the European Commission, European Parliament and all member states) to recognise that the ending of British export controls linked to minimum values would mean the rounding up of Dartmoor and other wild ponies for degrading and wholly unfamiliar transport to and across Europe; and calls for changes to proposed European Community measures on the protection of animals during transport, in order to maintain restrictions which avoid cruel treatment to British horses and ponies during long journeys and at continental slaughterhouses.]
It deals with the disturbing situation that will arise after 1992 unless something is done about the export of horses and ponies for brutal slaughter in European abattoirs. The House should give urgent and early attention to these matters to protect equines, as we should protect all animals.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: If my hon. Friend wants to bring that matter forthwith to the attention of the House, he can seek an Adjournment debate on it. The Government are already firmly on record as opposing any cruelty to animals during transport. In negotiations within the Community, we shall seek in the future, as in the past, to maintain controls designed to prevent the export of horses and ponies for slaughter.

Mr. Dave Nellist: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement on the ambulance dispute next Tuesday from the Secretary of State for Health? On that day, Labour Members such as myself will take part in marches and rallies throughout the country in support of the ambulance workers. Is he aware that, unless the Secretary of State removes the Army and police from the streets of the cities and towns of Britain, withdraws provocative action against the ambulance workers and gives them a decent wage rate, widespread and generalised industrial action of solidarity with the ambulance workers will be undertaken on Tuesday—by workers such as those in several workplaces in Coventry, who have already decided on a half-day strike—and that pressure will only increase? Why does not the Secretary of State do something about solving the dispute by giving the ambulance workers a decent living wage?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman's perception of the matter is entirely the wrong way round. As long as industrial action of the kind that he is prepared to support continues, it will remain the duty of the Government and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health to ensure that alternative arrangements are ready and available to deal with emergencies in a proper way.

Mr. James Couchman: In view of the continuing uncertainty caused by British Rail's failure to announce its final plans for a link from the Channel tunnel to London and beyond, which has brought great distress to the residents of Kent and south-east London, will my right hon. and learned Friend organise a debate in the near future on that extremely important topic?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot undertake to organise a debate. However, I can undertake, as I have done more than once, to bring the anxiety expressed in the House to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and of British Rail.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: May I remind the Leader of the House that almost three years ago, the then Home Secretary was quick enough to come to the House to offer a statement about events at Wapping when he saw it as an opportunity to whip the trade unions and to criticise them and others who were present that night? Given that the report of the Northamptonshire police into events at Wapping is now available, will he give a guarantee that there will be a full statement or, even better, a debate in the House? Is he aware that the matter is of the most fundamental concern, not just to trade unions but for the way in which policing is carried out in London and control by the police of events in which trade unions are involved?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot give a guarantee about how the matter should or will be handled. As I have already told the House, the report of which we now have knowledge was submitted in accordance with the statutory procedures for complaint to the independent Police

Complaints Authority. The prospect of publication will be dealt with by the authority in due course in the proper manner. At all times, the House retains the opportunity to debate the matter if any hon. Member can find an opportunity to do so.

Miss Ann Widdecombe: It is now some weeks since my right hon. and learned Friend promised to give consideration to the possibility of a parliamentary debate on the Polkinghorne report. The report has not been discussed in the House. What was the outcome of his considerations?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend knows a great deal about the matter. She will recollect that the Polkinghorne committee considered that legislation was not appropriate because of the need for flexibility. She will also be aware that developmets are taking place quickly. Granted that, the Government decided to promulgate the new code of practice without delay. That is what has happened. It is open to my hon. Friend and to any other hon. Member to seek an opportunity to debate the matter in the House. I shall bear her points in mind, but I cannot go further than that.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Now that the lady is for turning, will the Leader of the House organise a statement by the Prime Minister next week on the changes to the poll tax, so that we can dismiss rumours of the possibility that educational salaries will be taken away from the poll tax charge before its implementation in April? If he cannot do that, will he appoint an inquiry into the working of the poll tax, in view of the many changes? Perhaps he could put Lord Justice Taylor in charge.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman is testing his capacity for fancifulness to destruction. The community charge has been debated here many times in recent weeks, and there will be two opportunities for discussing the Taylor report next week. The matters should be kept well separate from each other.

Mr. James Kilfedder: Would my right hon. and learned Friend arrange a debate on the creation of a Select Committee on Northern Ireland? As he is aware, there is an urgent need to provide a satisfactory way of dealing with Northern Ireland parliamentary business, and the old Northern Ireland Committee is no substitute.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand my hon. Friend's natural and continued concern with this matter. As he will understand, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Ireland—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ireland?"]—Northern Ireland—has often underlined his willingness to talk to hon. Members on that matter.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will call those hon. Members who are standing. May I remind hon. Members for Scottish constituencies that there is a debate on Scotland following this? They may consider that it could jeopardise their chances if we take up more time now on business questions.

Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating President Moi of Kenya on today destroying a substantial stock of rhino horn seized from poachers and destroying it, just as


he destroyed the ivory which was seized from poachers? President Moi deserves our congratulations, and I hope that the Leader of the House will agree that he deserves financial support from the Government for the actions that he has taken.
It would be most helpful, because there are disputes about the effect of the Government's decision to allow Hong Kong ivory on to the world market, for us to have a debate on this issue in view of the great amount of international concern. Is the Leader of the House aware that, despite what he said earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey), the ivory dealers in Hong Kong are asking for the six-month moratorium to be extended to two years? We must debate the matter urgently.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: If we do not debate it, it will not be for want of trying by the hon. Gentleman. I will certainly keep the matter in mind.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Could we have time for a debate about the judiciary? I know that there are limitations about removing members of the judiciary recently, but I think that the House ought to have a look at that again and make time for a debate. Many people are concerned that some judges, and one judge in particular, Judge Pickles, displays a continuing arrogance in asserting that he cannot—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has already said that he cannot say that. Now he has. Perhaps he would withdraw it.

Mr. Cryer: I will rephrase my remarks, Mr. Speaker. Some people are very concerned that, although there is a Criminal Injuries Compensation Board for the victims of crime, there seems to be no compensation for people who are sent to prison for contempt, who appeal and who are released immediately. It is time that this injustice, meted out by some members of the judiciary—including one in particular, whom I shall not name—should not go on without any discussion by the legislature to make sure that this arrogance is brought to an end.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman knows very well that if there is a matter of some substance there that he wishes to raise, there is almost an infinity of ways in which he can raise it properly and within the rules of order, rather than in this somewhat curious fashion during the course of business questions.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Leader of the House turn his attention to early-day motion 379 on access to the palace of Westminster?
[That this House is concerned at the continuing lack of facilities for visitors to the Palace of Westminster; and calls for urgent changes to prevent visitors having to wait outside merely to enter the building, access to refreshment facilities that do not require the attendance of an honourable Member or pass holder and urgent changes to give full access to those who suffer from disabilities, including full wheelchair access to all parts of the building.]
Will he arrange for a statement urgently about improving visitors' access, so that they are not waiting outside in the rain and in the cold to get in here, and so that they can get refreshments without having to be accompanied by hon. Members? Most important, since the House has quite rightly passed legislation on access to

public buildings for people with disabilities, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that we do not have this nonsense of people in wheelchairs finding it extremely difficult to get in or park their vehicles and suffering great humiliation merely in entering the House to attend any sort of meeting? It really is not on that the House should legislate for the rest of the country and not apply the legislation to itself.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman must realise that any holder of my present job readily becomes aware of the large number of shortcomings in the facilities available to hon. Members and members of the public. The House endeavours to improve these things: for example, we recently agreed, although we have not yet implemented, improved access to the line of route, and, for disabled visitors, we have been making some improvements to this ancient building as far and as fast as possible. But I would not pretend that there are not many other matters which deserve attention and to which the House ought to strive to address itself with increasing application. We cannot expand the site beyond its existing limitations. We cannot transform or transplant the site, but we need to apply ourselves fully to the questions raised by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. William McKelvey: Does the Leader of the House realise that, on a day very much like today 231 years ago in Alloway, Ayrshire, the world's most famout poet was born? Does he further realise that tonight throughout the world Scots and non-Scots alike will be celebrating his memory and will be lamenting the lack of a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs? Will the Leader of the House therefore undertake to apply himself vigorously next week to setting up such a committee and abandon his "man's inhumanity to man" stance?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Burns also said:
Be Britain still to Britain true, Among ourselves united".
That is a sentiment that also deserves reflection.

Mr. Jimmy Hood: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware that last week my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) had an Adjournment debate on chatlines. It was unfortunate that the Minister, in response to requests from both sides of the House that the Government should take action to make these sexually perverted chatlines unlawful, said that the Government would not take action. Will the Leader of the House ask his colleagues in the Cabinet to think again and to support measures from private Members, if not from the Government, to make these disgraceful chatlines unlawful?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot promise to take consideration further than was promised by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs only a few days ago. The matter is receiving, and will continue to receive, proper consideration.

Mr. Thomas Graham: Could the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Defence to make a statement to the House on the reason why Bishopton Royal Ordnance factory has to lose a laboratory and the 26 jobs that go with it after the the magnificent case and battle put up by Royal Ordnance workers throughout the country to keep jobs in


Bishopton? Will the Leader of the House listen to the pleas of the people of Scotland? Enough is enough; they have suffered too much unemployment. The Government can stop this deliberate creation of further unemployment in my area.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I will certainly bring the point raised by the hon. Gentleman to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. On the wider question that he raised of employment and unemployment in Scotland, he will have observed the presence in the House of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, who continues effectively to conduct economic policy which enhances the growth of employment in Scotland, as it has done for some time under the Government.

Mr. John McFall: Could the Leader of the House arrange for the appropriate Minister to make a statement to the House next week on the state of the ambulance dispute in my constituency? Today, ambulance workers set up an emergency service with its own telephone number, which has been disconnected unilaterally by the Scottish ambulance service, despite the Arctic conditions prevailing in my constituency, where many roads are blocked. If people telephone that number, they will not even get a recorded message to dial 999. Can the Leader of the House do something by bringing someone here and showing that the Government, in making a statement next week, have concern for the people?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: It is for the local ambulance service management to decide how to respond to matters of the kind referred to by the hon. Gentleman. For everybody—above all, for the leaders of the unions concerned—the urgent and correct answer is to secure a return to normal working as soon as possible.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTION ON MONDAY, 12 FEBRUARY

Members successful in the ballot were:
Mr. Keith Vaz
Mr. Michael Martin
Mr. Peter L. Pike

Points of Order

Dr. John Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. While the news that lumps of masonry are falling off the House may be a cause for celebration in some parts of the country, no doubt with the added hope that some of us do not get out before the whole thing comes down, it is a serious matter. Further to the welcome statement by the Leader of the House, should we not discuss the matter urgently? Obviously it results from the neglect of the fabric of the building, which is symptomatic of a wider neglect of investment for the House. May I encourage the Leader of the House to bring forward new thinking on exactly the manner and way in which we finance the services and facilities of Parliament?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): That is rather an ingenious point of order, but the hon. Gentleman is not unknown for such an approach to these matters. One should not conclude that the sort of damage taking place in today's storm conditions necessarily signifies lack of maintenance, because many other buildings are suffering in the same way from the exceptional weather conditions—which, I am told, are likely to abate as the evening moves on. We shall ensure that the House authorities continue to do what they can in relation to what may happen, and we shall warn hon. Members of further hazards. Yes, I do attach importance to ensuring that we get the best possible arrangements for the management, not only of the building but of other aspects of the Palace of Westminster as a whole, including the House.

Mr. Gerry Steinberg: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During the debate on schools yesterday, when summing up—as reported in Hansard, column 942—the Minister of State implied that I was an adviser to the Assistant Masters and Mistresses Association. In no way am I an adviser—either voluntary or paid—to that association.

Mr. Roger King: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I must warn the House that we have an important debate ahead of us.

Mr. King: I will be brief, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that, yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) and I raised the matter of an incident involving three Labour Members which was dealt with. Since then, have you received any report from the Serjeant at Arms about an altercation which took place in the Lobby that evening involving my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott)? I have had the opportunity to drop a note to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East who is clearly not about the House at the moment. I understand that the incident consisted of some physical and verbal abuse. Have you, Mr. Speaker, received any reports about it? Was it picked up by the video cameras in the House?

Mr. Speaker: It is the first that I have heard of it.

Mr. Ray Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure this point will appeal to you as our


employer. Suggestions have been made about the fabric of the building collapsing and there has been a request to the Leader of the House to make alternative arrangements, because of the lack of accommodation here, should the building have to be closed.
However, only this week we were given to understand that a large building opposite, on the other side of the river, which would have been ideal for accommodating Members today, has been sold to private enterprise. Should the wind and hurricane start blasting off more of the roof of this building, you, Mr. Speaker, will have the responsibility of safeguarding Members' interests because you are our employer. I do not know whether employer's liability is involved in this matter, but you are our employer and it is your responsibility. I hope that you will take action.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have an important debate in front of us. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am not his employer, but I do have a concern for the safety and welfare of Members. However, I am not responsible for the weather.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Further to the point of order of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King), Mr. Speaker. I can confirm that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East was last night feeling tired and upset about the points of order raised, there was physical contact between him and me and he uttered some words of abuse. However, I have no scratches on me today. I understand that I am in a long line of Welsh Members who have received the same treatment, including Lord Callaghan of Cardiff. I certainly do not wish to take the matter further.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us not take anything further. We have an important debate ahead.

Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Well, I hope that the hon. Gentleman realises that he is doing a disservice to his colleagues in Scotland who are waiting to have an important debate on the community charge. However, I will hear him.

Mr. Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Do you agree that, if hon. Members wish to raise on points of order matters concerning the conduct of, or anything else about, other hon. Members, common courtesy requires them to advise the hon. Members to whom they intend to refer of their intention? [Interruption.] If I may say so, nothing would suit the hon. member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) better than a good thrashing.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us get on to a good debate.

Mr. Edward Leigh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have heard of lager louts, we have had Tea Room tantrums and now we have Lobby louts. Can we be protected from such shipboard manners as we proceed through the Lobbies?

Mr. Speaker: Let us get on with the business of the House.

Housing and Local Government (Scotland)

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): I beg to move,
That the draft Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 12th December, be approved.

Mr. Speaker: I suggest that it will be convenient to debate at the same time the following four motions:
That the draft Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Variation Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 12th December, be approved.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Housing Revenue Account General Fund Contribution Limits (Scotland) Order 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 2310), dated 7th December 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 12th December, be annulled.
That the Revenue Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 21st December, be approved.
That the Revenue Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1990. dated 8th January 1990, a copy of which was laid before this House on 9th January, be approved.
The debate, as the House knows, must conclude at 7 o'clock. I therefore appeal to hon. Members who are seeking to be called in the debate to speak briefly. Then, with any luck, it may be possible to call all of them.

Mr. Rifkind: This is the annual opportunity for the House to debate the revenue support grant and housing support grant orders affecting Scottish local authorities. It is our tradition not only to deal with the details of the orders but to use this as an opportunity to comment on some of the wider matters that arise out of the provision made by the orders.
Because of the time available, I shall speak briefly to the orders and then make some wider comments on matters relevant to them. I hope that that will enable the debate to move forward.
I start with the draft Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Variation Order 1990, about which I need say little. It deals with the interest rate assumptions for local authority borrowing. In the original order, there had been an assumption of a 10·2 per cent. interest rate. As it turned out, the average interest rate for local authorities has been 10·5 pr cent. The consequence of that has been an increase of grant payable to local authorities, which will now be £65·3 million instead of £60·4 million.
The main instrument, the draft Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1990, sets out the amounts of housing support grant to Scottish local authorities for 1990–91. It. provides for a total of £59·6 million to be given to 21 local authorities.
In determining the level of housing support grant, I am required to reach a view as to the difference between the estimate of relevant expenditure and the estimate of relevant income for local authorities' housing accounts. There are essentially two components to expenditure—the loan charges that local authorities are likely to incur and the management and maintenance expenditure in which they will wish to involve themselves.
At present, we estimate that loan charges will be 10·2 per cent.—the average rate of interest—but if that turns out to be inaccurate, then, in the same way as this year, there will be a variation order, which is the normal practice.
For management and maintenance, which is an important aspect, for 1990–91 there is a per house allowance of £407, an increase of 12·5 per cent. in the assumption that we are making of the resources that local authorities will wish to provide for the management and maintenance of their housing stock. I am pleased to say that this is the fourth year in succession that we have been able to put forward a figure well in excess of inflation, recognising the desirability of local authorities improving the management and maintenance of their housing stock, in the interests of their tenants and of housing as a whole.
On the income side, we are assuming, for purposes of housing support grant, a relevant income that is based on rents increasing by £2·37 per house per week. That is an increase of 12·5 per cent., exactly the same as the assumption for management and maintenance.
I should emphasise that that is simply an assumption that the Government make to ensure equity in the distribution of housing support grant. It is a matter entirely for the discretion of local authorities whether they wish to work on the basis of the assumptions that the Government have made or whether, in respect of rents or management and maintenance expenditure, they wish to provide for a higher or lower figure. Local authorities have total discretion in the matter, without any penalty from central Government as a result of whatever decision they choose to take. Because, for most authorities, loan charges are not expected to rise significantly above 1989–90 levels, most local authorities can increase their management and maintenance expenditure by significantly more than they increase their rents. That will be true even of those authorities that receive housing support grant. I therefore would not expect average rents to increase by anything like 12·5 per cent.
I should also mention that our proposals for limiting general fund contributions in 1990–91 are based on a proposition that they should be limited to £2·8 million. It is our view that the extent to which the community charge payer should be expected to subsidise council house rents should be at the lowest practicable level. The House will be aware that the sums available have been steadily reduced over the past few years.

Mr. Adam Ingram: On the general fund contribution, I draw the Secretary of State's attention to a matter of concern in my constituency and a problem facing East Kilbride district council. Representations have been made to the Secretary of State and to the Scottish Office about the 58-bed single persons' unit at Lindsay house in East Kilbride. That hostel runs at a deficit of £60,000, which must be borne by 1,138 council house tenants in East Kilbride. That works out at £1·01 per week for each council house tenant.
The district council does not receive any entitlement to transfer from the general fund to meet that deficit. Will the Secretary of State give further consideration to the representations made by the district councils and allow all poll tax payers in the district to meet the deficit that has been run up on that unit?

Mr. Rifkind: I am certainly willing to give consideration to the hon. Gentleman's point. However, as he knows, it is a basic principle that there should be a proper balance on the housing account. All local authorities, not just East

Kilbride, are expected to balance from their income the expenditure that they incur. Only if there was a good reason why East Kilbride should be exempted from that proposition would it be appropriate to apply different rules from those that are traditionally applied to other local authorities.

Mr. Ingram: A special set of circumstances is applicable to East Kilbride. The bulk of public sector housing is run and operated by the development corporation. I repeat that there are only 1,138 district council tenants within the conurbation of East Kilbride. Those circumstances warrant proper examination.

Mr. Rifkind: I note what the hon. Gentleman has said, and obviously we shall have an opportunity to study his remarks in due course.
On the basis of forecast loan charges, and assuming that each authority increases its management and maintenance spending by 12·5 per cent. per house above last year's levels, our calculation is that local authority rents would need to be increased from their present average level of £18·80 per house by about £1·38. That would represent an increase of 7·3 per cent. That is what local authorities would need to do; whether they choose to do that or to opt for a much higher figure is a matter entirely for them.
Where authorities have opted for a much higher level, it is almost invariably because of the covenant arrangements that some local authorites have established. I understand that Edinburgh district council is proposing a rent increase of £3·50. It should be clearly understood in Edinburgh, as well as in the House, that that is a consequence not of the level of Government support, but of the covenant arrangements that that local authority, along with others such as Glasgow and Dundee, chose to enter into, to finance capital investment above and beyond the levels of capital allocations. As a consequence of that, such authorities may have to contemplate higher rent increases.
The Revenue Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1989 deals with the errors that were made by Strathclyde regional council in the figures that it submitted to the Scottish Office in respect of two authorities—Strathkelvin and Argyll and Bute. The effect of the error was to reduce Strathkelvin's grant entitlement in the current year by £323,000. The error did not affect Argyll and Bute's overall grant position in 1989–90, but it did affect the proportion of grant that the authority received from the safety net for that year. If a correction had not been made, that would have reduced the amount of safety netting that Argyll and Bute would receive in 1990–91 by almost £320,000. The order will restore to Strathkelvin the under-allocation of £323,000. That will be achieved by marginal reductions in grant for most other local authorities.
The purpose of the Revenue Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1990 is to implement the distribution of the sum of £2,479·3 million, which was the figure announced by me in the House on 26 July last. I remind the House that at an earlier stage of our deliberations the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities—COSLA—said that it hoped that the Scottish Office would provide for a 7 per cent. increase in grant. COSLA considered that that would be acceptable as it would meet the requirements of local authorities. The figures that I announced in July met that requirement to the letter. They provided for a 7 per cent.


increase, and, of course, there has since been a further increase because of the £30 million safety net fund that the Treasury is providing through the Scottish Office, to those local authorities. Together with specific grants, that means an overall increase of 8·2 per cent. There are two stages in the process of the distribution of these resources. First, an amount is distributed among authorities to equalise differences in their grant-aided expenditure, which is determined by the client group assessment approach. The rest of the grant is distributed on a per capita basis.
I should like to deal briefly with the safety netting principle. I remind the House that COSLA said that there should be no safety net at all, either last year or thereafter. Hon. Members from Glasgow and Strathclyde constituencies, who occasionally deem fit to criticise the effect on their local authorities of the running down of the safety net, might like to reflect on the fact that if we had accepted the advice of COSLA, which they normally like to support, there would have been no safety net at all right from the very beginning. So, if criticism is to be the order of the day, I trust that it will be directed towards the right quarter.

Mr. Donald Dewar: Not at all.

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman says, "Not at all." That does not reflect his customary sense of fairness, but perhaps it reflects his realisation of where the strength of the argument lies.
In this, its second year, the safety net will add up to £30 million. The main beneficiaries will be Strathclyde region and Glasgow district, which will receive extra grant totalling £17·1 million and £10·4 million respectively. However, I emphasise that this year those grants will not be at the expense of local authorities in other parts of Scotland, many of which have benefited significantly from the fact that there is no longer a requirement to fund the safety net of Strathclyde and Glasgow and one or two other authorities.
In July I said that, in the light of this generous settlement, there should be no need for many authorities—indeed, most authorities—to consider an increase in the community charge above the rate of inflation. I stated that, in respect of a number of authorities, there would be a powerful case for reducing the community charge when they came to settle the proposals for the forthcoming year. That process has not yet been concluded, but it is interesting to see that, already, a significant number of authorities appear to have reached a similar conclusion. On the basis of the figures that we have currently, it is clear that in the case of quite a number of local authorities, the community charge will be reduced—not just not increased, but actually reduced.
I think, for example, of Ettrick and Lauderdale district council, where there will be a reduction of 4·76 per cent.; Falkirk district council, a zero increase; Grampian regional council, minus 5·29 per cent.; Gordon district council, minus 2·27 per cent.; Badenoch and Strathspey district council, minus 34·29 per cent.; and Eastwood district council, minus 30·16 per cent. In many of those cases, of course, there could have been even greater reductions without any effect on services. Nevertheless, I acknowledge that important progress has been made on that front.
Inevitably, there are one or two other local authorities that choose to spoil the general picture. The House will not

be surprised if I make reference to them. I shall not dwell for long on what might, at first glance, appear to be the greatest sinner of them all. I notice from the list that I have—at present it is a proposal—that in the case of one local authority, at district council level there is a proposal to increase the community charge by no less than 116 per cent. That might imply a wicked imposition on the local electorate, but when I look further I find that it is Sutherland district council, whose community charge in the current year was the princely sum of £6 per head, which it is proposing to increase to £13 per head. I do not want to give the impression that even an increase of £7 is acceptable or can be defended, but I acknowledge that that authority is not entirely comparable with others.
However, the same cannot be said for some other authorities, such as Stirling district council and Edinburgh district council.

Dr. John Reid: In order to put the figures that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is about to give us in context, along with the political comments that he will no doubt make, will he tell us who controls Sutherland district council? Is it the Labour party or the aptly named independents, who everybody knows are the Scottish equivalent of the Conservative party?

Mr. Rifkind: I would like to believe that it was the Scottish equivalent of the Conservative party, but I am not sure that Councillor Jamieson, the vice-president of COSLA, who sits as an independent, would agree with that description.
Sutherland is not a Conservative-controlled authority because, if it were, it would not be contemplating a 100 per cent. increase in the community charge. That seems to be a fairly conclusive argument.
I was about to refer to authorities that are going for substantial increases, for which they will have to account to their local electorate. Stirling district council, an authority that had an increase in grant and non-domestic rate income for the year that is about to begin of no less than 20 per cent., instead of reducing its community charge, or even maintaining it, starts off with the second highest community charge in Scotland at district council level and is proposing an increase of some 18 per cent. in order to fund new expenditure.
Edinburgh district council, my local authority, has approved an increase of some 24 per cent. I see that no Edinburgh Labour Members are in the Chamber today, and I am not surprised because they will not be anxious to defend that decision—

Mr. George Galloway: I am anxious that fairness should be done. Is it not the case that my hon. Friends from Edinburgh are occupied with the important issue of Ferranti, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks might just be the cheapest of shots?

Mr. Rifkind: That might be convincing if the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) had not just walked into the Chamber.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: rose—

Mr. Rifkind: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but he might like to wait until he has heard what I am about to say about his fraternal colleagues, when I am sure that he will wish to intervene in order to make his views known.
Before there is any suggestion that Edinburgh's Labour-controlled district council's 24 per cent. increase in the community charge—which enables it to retain the unenviable position of having the highest community charge in Scotland, combined with the Labour-controlled regional council—was due to the level of Government grant, the hon. Gentleman might like to be aware of the explanation given by his colleague, Councillor Mark Lazarowicz, who explained that extraordinary increase by saying that it was regrettable but that the council had a commitment to provide good service and that it proposed to increase expenditure on the staffing of new sports centres and libraries, and on grants to various other organisations.
Councillor Vestri of Edinburgh district council, talking of the rent increase of £3·50, said:
No one wants to increase rents but we have no alternative. The rise will include an increase in spending on repairs and maintenance".
He went on to say:
The problem, of course, was that the amount to which the council could subsidise the rents had been reduced by the Government.
Councillor Lazarowicz said that as well. If it had not been reduced by the Government, the community charge increase would have been not 24 per cent. but 34 per cent., as a consequence of the authority's profligacy.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: I wanted to take this opportunity Madam Deputy Speaker, to apologise to you and to Mr. Speaker for coming late to the debate, when I had said that I hoped to catch your eye. The reason for my lateness is that the figures that I intend to use to rebut some of the Secretary of State's arguments were in my room, which was locked because of the masonry falling off the roof of the building. It has taken me half an hour to persuade the Serjeant at Arms' office, which is hard pressed, to unlock that door.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) is a member of the Committee presently considering the Broadcasting Bill, and my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) is dealing with the Ferranti matter, which is of pressing importance, not just to him but, I am sure, to the Secretary of State and his colleagues.
I shall come to a defence of Edinburgh, and a stout defence at that, and will refer to the Secretary of State's figures and his appalling meanness towards his city if I am fortunate enough to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Rifkind: Methinks the hon. Gentleman doth protest too much. The House is fascinated to know where some of his hon. Friends are, but we were waiting in eager anticipation to know where the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown) was; clearly the hon. Gentleman has not been given such information, for reasons on which we can speculate.
We shall all be interested to know whether Edinburgh district council and Stirling district council, in proposing such massive increases, appear to be following the advice of one Labour local authority in the south of the United Kingdom, which encouraged Labour local authorities to set their charges
at the highest you can get away with.
That is clearly the aspiration of Labour local authorities.

Mr. Brian Wilson: The Secretary of State obviously has a clear idea of Edinburgh district council's requirements. Therefore, will he tell us which of the budgets that were debated at the meeting of the Tory group on Edinburgh district council yesterday he supports? Does he support the views of the leader of the Tory group, who is somewhat fancifully represented in The Scotsman today as the leader of the Left faction, or does he support Mr. Paul Martin, who triumphed over the leader and put forward a budget that contains even more cuts in services?

Mr. Rifkind: The proposals before the group involved a substantial reduction in the community charge compared with the Labour party's proposal. I should have been content if either had been adopted by the district council, as would the community charge payers in Edinburgh.
I am conscious of the fact that Her Majesty's Opposition are in the process yet again of trying to find an alternative to the community charge and to the domestic rates that it replaced. We have had a pretty miserable saga over the past couple of years, as the Labour party has twisted and turned from one option to another before abandoning each and desperately looking for a new solution. We started off with a Labour party committed to the retention of the rating system, believing that somehow it was preferable to the alternative. Then it came up with the rather extraordinary idea that one unpopular tax should be replaced by two unpopular taxes and we had the proposition that there should be a property tax and a local income tax as an alternative to the community charge.
The Leader of the Opposition made a most delightful comment on the proposition of two taxes to replace one, when in The Guardian on 21 September last year, he said:
What we are contemplating may involve a tax based on the value of property supplemented by a small, a very small, local income tax".
That is rather like the housemaid's baby. As long as it is very small, it is somehow considered acceptable. But clearly that view has since been repudiated by the Labour party, because it is now telling us that that has been abandoned. Earlier this week we heard that the Labour party is to come forward with a proposal for a property tax based on the capital value of property as opposed to the rateable value, which would be supplemented in some form or fashion by reference to income.

Dr. Reid: rose—

Mr. Rifkind: I shall give way in a moment.
We shall all be intrigued to know whether there is any truth in the report in The Scotsman, which said:
Labour is to adopt a different poll tax alternative in Scotland than in the rest of Britain.
If I were a more suspicious and uncomplimentary sort of fellow, I might have accused the Labour party of wishing to treat Scotland as some sort of guinea pig, some sort of experiment, with Scotland being treated differently from elsewhere in the United Kingdom. That is a most extraordinary proposition and I find it difficult to believe that it can seriously represent the views of Opposition Members. However, that is what it says in The Scotsman and Mr. McLoughlin is a well-recognised and respectable correspondent, and if he says that Labour intends to adopt a different alternative in Scotland from that in the rest of Britain, presumably he has been in receipt of some


information from the Labour party. Perhaps the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) will tell us whether Mr. McLoughlin is correct.

Dr. Reid: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman has already entered his statutory attack on the Labour party, I assume that he has finished saying anything of substance about his Government's policies. I apologise, however, as I want to drag him back to those policies. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is so keen on having uniformity of taxation throughout the United Kingdom, why has he not mentioned poll tax capping in his speech—I may have missed his reference to it—as such capping will certainly be employed in England and Wales? The raison d'etre of the poll tax was to make councillors accountable to the electorate, so that if those councillors increased the poll tax, they would be held accountable. Why does the operation of such a tax apparently now merit interference from the Government? Such interference will remove accountability, as the local electorate will be told that their duly elected councillors will be unable to raise the poll tax to the required or suitable level because the Government will then cap that authority. Will such capping operate in Scotland?

Mr. Rifkind: I note that the hon. Gentleman is reluctant to comment on the Labour party's policy, but I have every intention of pursuing that matter. However, the hon. Gentleman—will be aware that the statutory basis for intervention in Scotland is different from that south of the border. In Scotland, the Secretary of State can intervene only if he is satisfied that the proposed expenditure of a local authority is excessive and unreasonable. If the believes that that is so, he tables an order before the House. That has happened in previous years, but it did not happen in the current years under the new system. It is for the House to consider whether such an order is appropriate, but such action can be considered only when the budgets of the local authorities have been duly analysed.

Mr. Ernie Ross: Will there be capping?

Mr. Rifkind: I cannot comment now on whether there will or will not be any capping. In the past, I have said that I should be extremely reluctant to take action against local authorities, as I believe that, under the arrangements for much greater accountability, it is primarily for the electorate to pass their verdict on a local authority.
Parliament still provides for action to be taken, if the House so approves, but I cannot contemplate whether such action would be appropriate until the local authority budgets have been considered.

Dr. Reid: It is important to clarify this issue. Was the right hon. and learned Gentleman searching for the word "yes"? Will poll tax capping be used in Scotland? Under the different circumstances that prevail in Scotland, will circumstances arise under which he will take a course of action entirely opposite to the essence of the poll tax, which he introduced in the first place?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman knows that that power remains on the statute book. I did not deem it appropriate to use it in the current year and I have already said that I should be reluctant to use it in the future, for the

reasons given. Any final decision cannot be taken now, at the end of the previous financial year and the hon. Gentleman knows that perfectly well.
Let us return, as promised, to the alternatives to the community charge. We are told that it would be a property tax based on the capital values of properties in Scotland. If the Labour party were to continue with such a proposition, it would make the controversy over the community charge look like a General Assembly garden party in comparison.
Such a tax would be a most appalling innovation in several respects. First, it would be a recipe for an explosion in local tax payments. As we know, property values have soared over the years, and under a system where one's liabilities were based on the value of one's house, one's local tax obligations would also soar. Secondly, such a tax would be a tax on home improvements. People seeking to improve their homes, especially the 170,000 council tenants who, having bought their homes from their local authorities have, in many cases, initiated substantial improvements to them, would find that they were faced with a massive increase in their tax obligations to their local authorities.
To seek to discourage young married couples from improving their lot and that of their families is an extraordinary proposition. If they should build an extra room for their growing families, erect a garage or install central heating to keep the family warm in winter, it will not only cost them in terms of providing such facilities, but the Labour party will tax them more heavily as a consequence.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: rose—

Mr. Rifkind: I give way to the hon. Gentleman, as I cannot believe that he would want to support such an inequitable proposition.

Mr. Martin: I am glad that the right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned young couples' ability to get homes. In the high-demand areas of my community, local authority houses are now changing hands at £30,000 a time, but he will know that those houses were acquired by the sitting tenants for £7,000. Young couples who are on the dole cannot obtain a local authority home in the area in which they were brought up, because they cannot afford such prices. The right hon. and learned Gentleman should study the problem to see whether he can find any answers.

Mr. Rifkind: I shall be happy to look at that problem if the hon. Gentleman will inform his constituents that, under his party's proposal, the tax that they would pay to their local authority would be based not on the £7,000 that they paid for their council houses, but on the £30,000 which the hon. Gentleman says such houses are now deemed to be worth. I am sure that his constituents will not thank him for advocating a proposition that would result in an explosion in the amount of tax that they would pay to their local authorities. Such tax increases would also be faced elsewhere in Scotland.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: If that proposal was put forward, there would be another triumph for the Labour party, particularly the Scottish Labour party—that since property prices in Scotland are so much lower than they are in the south-east of England, that region would be taxed at a much lower rate.

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. and learned Friend is right.
Several factors are associated with the Labour party's proposal and, so far, I have mentioned two. The third is the hundreds of thousands of people in Scotland who did not pay rates because they were not owner-occupiers or tenants, but who are now contributing to the community charge. Under the Labour party's proposal, they would once again, be exempt from any direct contribution to the cost of local government. The sums that such people currently pay under the community charge would have to be borne again, as they were under the rating system, by the minority—

Dr. Reid: The poor would be exempt.

Mr. Rifkind: No, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. Those exempted would include many young adult sons and daughters who would be in receipt of a much greater income than their elderly next-door neighbours. Under the Labour party's proposal, those young people would not make a penny contribution to the revenues raised by local authorities.
It appears that the Labour party wants us to return to the time when hundreds and thousands of young adults, on good incomes and in employment, were exempt from making a contribution simply because they were living with their parents or in someone else's house. Such an attitude is fundamentally unfair.
Fourthly, the Labour party's proposal would represent a tax on the elderly. The longer one lives in one's own home, the more its value will increase and the more one's taxes will increase, irrespective of whether one is retired or not. Furthermore, there would be no question of a pensioner's tax contribution being halved when his spouse died—such an exemption operates under the community charge. Under the Labour party's proposal, the remaining partner would continue to make the maximum contribution based on the value of the home.
Fifthly, we would return to the days of revaluation on a regular basis, with all the horrors that that produced. I speak with some feeling on that matter; should the Opposition introduce a system that required regular revaluations, they would live to rue that day.

Mr. Wilson: Does the Secretary of State accept that he is building a rather melodramatic fantasy on the basis of a third of a column in The Scotsman?

Mr. Rifkind: If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the report is entirely inaccurate and that the Labour party does not intend to propose an alternative based on capital values, we shall look forward to hearing more. The hon. Gentleman says that what I have said is a melodramatic fantasy. If the Labour party is not proposing a capital value-based local tax, I shall happily withdraw the accusation. But if it is, then, by the hon. Gentleman's own words, it is a melodramatic fantasy. That is a most interesting description.

Mr. Wilson: Although I am unable to aspire to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's legal sleight of tongue, there is a great difference between a system based on capital values and what he has spun out of it, for it bears no relation to anything that the Labour party is ever likely to put forward. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has constructed something in order then to knock it down.

Mr. Rifkind: We look forward to hearing the hon. Gentleman explain why it is that a tax based on capital values would not increase a person's liability to tax if he improved his home and thereby increased its capital value. We shall also look forward to hearing him explain how, under a system based on capital values, people who live in somebody else's house will cease to make any contribution to local taxes. We look forward to hearing how the elderly will be protected. I am aware that reports imply that the Labour party admits the inherent unfairness of a tax based solely on capital values and that it has suggested that it will also wish to take account of income. The Labour party, we understand, would modify tax liability on the grounds of income, but what about savings? The elderly rely primarily on savings. I hope that the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) will say whether savings, too, will be exempt.

Mr. John Home Robertson: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Secretary of State is weaving fantasies about what he thinks The Scotsman thinks the Labour party's policies might be. Am I not right in thinking that the debate is supposed to be about the level of poll tax and rents which he, the minority Secretary of State for Scotland, seeks to impose on the people of Scotland? Will you please ask him to direct his remarks to the reality of life in Scotland rather than to his fantasies?

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): I remind the hon. Gentleman that we have wide-ranging debates on such motions.

Mr. Galloway: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I believe that the hon. Gentleman is seeking to catch my eye. He is not going the right way about it. I also remind the Opposition that they will have an opportunity to refute the arguments in due course.

Mr. Rifkind: The House, and the people of Scotland, will be aware of the sensitivity—the raw nerve—that I appear to have touched, such is the reluctance of the Opposition to have their policies examined and considered. I am surprised that my modest comments about what I presume the Labour party firmly believes will be wildly popular throughout the length and breadth of Scotland should have given rise to accusations of irrelevance, unfairness, misrepresentation and all sorts of other terrible sins.

Mr. Robert Hughes: rose—

Mr. Galloway: rose—

Mr. Rifkind: Opposition Members are anxious to tell me what a popular tax this will be. I happily give way to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), who no doubt wishes to say that.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I am anxious to point out to the Secretary of State that in a debate which is to end at 7 o'clock he has spent 30 of the 35 minutes of his speech explaining what he thinks is Labour party policy. He has spent only five minutes on the subject of the debate. I know that he tries to be a fair-minded Secretary of State for Scotland, but it is carrying matters a little far, to cover his blushes, deficiencies and embarrassment, not to bother to make the case for his own orders.

Mr. Rifkind: I have spent half my time responding to Opposition interventions. They would have been the first to criticise me if I had declined to give way. I sense the Labour party's embarrassment. We shall have many other opportunities to consider its policies. I look forward to hearing the Oppositions's version of them.
As for the alleged non-payment of the community charge, I know that a number of Opposition Members have a personal pecuniary interest in it, either because they have or have not paid it. We shall no doubt wish to identify which hon. Members have or have not paid the community charge.
It has been suggested by the Labour party and the Scottish National party that the levels of non-payment of the community charge in Scotland give a message to the Government and to the wider public. If they examined what happened under the old rating system, they would find that at this time of the year local authorities, including Strathclyde regional council, issued summary warrants to almost exactly the same number of non-payers of domestic rates—

Mr. Jim Sillars: Apples and oranges.

Mr. Rifkind: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene, I shall happily give way to him. Apples and oranges are fruit, so they have a considerable amount in common.

Mr. Sillars: They are different kinds of fruit.

Mr. Rifkind: Of course they are different, and domestic rates and the community charge are different. However, when it comes to some people preferring not to pay their taxes, there appears to be a great similarity between them. In Strathclyde, 15 per cent. of those who were liable to pay domestic rates directly to the regional council declined to do so at this time of the year and received summary warrants. It is an interesting coincidence that, at this time of the year, 15 per cent. of community charge payers have similarly declined to pay it.
Before the Scottish National party grows too excited, I ought to say to the SNP Members of Parliament that Scotland would be more interested in what the SNP did than in what it says. In the one local authority that is controlled by the SNP, Angus district council, respectable, law-abiding people are anxious to obey the law and to encourage others to do the same. They are participating fully in the implementation and collection of the community charge.
However, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars), and the infant Robespierre from Banff and Buchan are encouraging law-breaking thoughout the length and breadth of Scotland—so much so that their colleague, Mr. Hamish Watt, a former Member of this House, felt it necessary, along with his colleagues, to resign from the SNP precisely because the hon. Member for Govan and the infant Robespierre from Banff and Buchan hijacked his party and turned it into another Left-wing Socialist party which is unacceptable to people in the north-east of Scotland. The hon. Member for Govan will no doubt wish to comment on these matters in due course.

Mr. Bill Walker: My right hon. and learned Friend has referred to a distinguished former Member of this House who left the Scottish National

party. He did not refer to a regional councillor, Flora Iles, who also left the SNP because it has no policies for anything and different policies for everywhere.

Mr. Rifkind: There will soon be more people leaving the Scottish National party than attend its constitutional convention.
The orders that are before the House are representative of a Government who have given a generous settlement to local authorities. It accords with what they asked for a year ago, when these matters were first considered. Any reservations that anyone might have had about the community charge will pale into insignificance the more the House and the people of Scotland have the opportunity, which the Labour party will be anxious for them to have, to examine the capital-value-based local tax that the Labour party wishes to propose and its implications for the elderly, those who wish to improve their homes and those who want a fair deal from local government in Scotland.

Mr. Donald Dewar: The Secretary of State has certainly painted a broad canvas. At one stage, I thought that I might follow him by showing my holiday snaps. They would have just about as much relevance. He was clearly enjoying himself, but it was a disgraceful speech. The Secretary of State made no attempt to deal with what is happening under his Government. It was a diversionary tactic and intermittently it was amusing—for example, the important piece of information that Mr. McLoughlin of The Scotsman is a respectable reporter and, according to the Secretary of State, a respected one. We were also told that there was something intrinsically comic about the poll tax in Sutherland.
I had hoped to make a brisk and brief speech, but it will take a little longer than I had anticipated. However, I am conscious that many of my hon. Friends want to take part in the debate.
The orders relate to the delivery of services and the quality of life. Both are directly affected by local government finance and housing finance in Scotland. IL is not just a nice Treasury balancing act that can be shrugged off in a few minutes before the Secretary of State takes off to go somewhere else. We shall want to consider the consequences of what is happening in our constituencies and in Scotland generally as a result of the inadequate way in which these matters have been dealt with by the Government.
I invite whoever is to wind up the debate for the Government to consider certain matters. I presume that, it will be the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) who is sitting there, as always, looking extremely alert—a pet by his master's side. I have no doubt that the hon. Member might say a word or two about councillors' allowances, which of course are part and parcel of the whole business.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): Is the hon. Member aware that decisions on these matters have been deferred for three months, at the request of COSLA and other associations, in order that further investigations may


be made? We look to COSLA to return to us with further information for my right hon. Friend, who will be seeing them on 9 February. That is the up-to-date information.

Mr. Dewar: The hon. Member will soon be known as Action Man. I am delighted to hear this, because—it is not often that I ride to the defence of Councillor Brian Meek and his colleagues—undoubtedly there was widespread concern right across the board, embracing all parties and all political persuasions, about what was proposed. It is very important that those who wish to serve as elected councillors and who carry the confidence of the electorate should be in a position to get on with the job.
The danger of the scheme that he proposed and the Government had embraced was that this would become the preserve of those who could afford to serve but were not necessarily best qualified to do so. It would have been tragic if a clumsy little manoeuvre of the Department of the Environment had damaged local democracy, which has already been put under unreasonable pressure by the Government. I very much hope that we shall now be able to get away from the very crude two-tier system based on an annual payment of £3,400 per regional councillor and £2,700 per district councillor, as was proposed.
I can only hope that the Minister has learnt something from his traumatic experience with the poll tax about the dangers of flat-rate systems and cash limits in that context. It is very important indeed that, if we cannot reach agreement on something that will allow people of talent and commitment to remain in local government, we should continue, perhaps for longer than three months, an attendance allowance system which at least has the basic virtue of being based upon the work that is done by councillors.
My attention was drawn in the Largs and Milport Weekly News to a very typical statement by the leader of the Conservative group on Cunninghame council, Councillor Edith Clarkson, who complained very bitterly about Members of Parliament:
They see us councillors as incompetent and useless, and people who do not do anything. There is no will in Parliament on any side of the House to look at it and see what we are doing.
She went on to complain bitterly about the Government's schemes, plans and proposals and their impact on local authority allowances and the new way of compensating councillors for the inevitable loss of income which they incur because they are elected to local government. I very much hope that the Minister will use the three months' period of grace which he has announced to find a way to get over these problems.
I turn first to the revenue support grant, because it is very basic. I expected that the Secretary of State would say that COSLA had asked for 7 per cent. I put that to one or two COSLA officials the other day and got a very robust reaction. As the Secretary of State well knows, that figure was produced at a period when the situation was rather different in terms, for example, of interest rates. The 7 per cent. or 7·5 per cent. that was then announced included within it a number of factors which could not have been anticipated.
I am thinking of the mandatory rating relief for charities and the rating relief for universities in Scotland. I do not think that these are necessarily bad in themselves—in fact, I strongly support them—but they have been

announced as concessions by central Government, and they have been financed entirely out of the revenue support grant that had already been fixed.
When Sir Kerr Fraser says, understandably in some alarm, that he thinks that it will take £40 million merely to preserve the fabric of Sir Gilbert Scott's Gothic imagination on Gilmorehill, no doubt he is thankful for the small mercy brought by rating relief, but I am sure that he would also accept that it is unfortunate that such a concession should be financed entirely at the expense of local government and local government services, or the poll tax payer, or some combination of both.
I believe that the figure is inadequate and that there is plenty of reason and evidence for saying so. Obviously, there was some initial confusion. The Secretary of State will remember the illuminating incident of Glasgow's allocation—a situation in which the Minister had forgotten to use his toes as well as his fingers when he did the initial calculation. When we have time to look at the final figures, the shape that emerges is one of enormous importance to the poll tax payers whose health is of such concern to the Secretary of State. There is no doubt that there is a direct correlation between what is happening to the poll tax in the individual areas of Scotland and what the Secretary of State has achieved in his grant distribution.
If we take the aggregate Exchequer grant and the non-domestic rate income of an authority and put them together, we find that the cash available to an authority such as Bearsden and Milngavie will in the coming year be 51 per cent. higher. In Eastwood, the increase is 50 per cent. Going down to some of the authorities which have been the butt of criticism by the Secretary of State, we begin to see, with the unwinding of the safety net and other grant distribution difficulties, some of the reasons why they have been faced with particular problems.
Bearsden plus 51 per cent. and Eastwood plus 50 per cent.: these are not areas that spring to the minds of my hon. Friends as those of highest deprivation or outstanding need when one considers the social profile of Scotland. Glasgow had a cut in cash terms of 2·6 per cent. Edinburgh had an increase of 0·082 per cent.—less than 1 per cent. When we compare that with the 50 per cent. and 51 per cent. figures at the top of the scale, we begin to see the gap that had to be bridged and the difficulties that had to be faced.
I think that the Secretary of State was ungracious and misleading in not recognising that and accepting that there was that genuine problem. He was the author of that problem, and this does him no credit.

Mr. Rifkind: rose—

Mr. Dewar: I will give way to him in a moment, but first I want to add a couple of points that he may want to deal with; I do not want to accept as many interruptions as he did, in the interests of other hon. Members who want to take part in the debate.
I do not disguise the fact that there is a difference of philosophy. In a sense, the Secretary of State outlined it perfectly clearly when he quoted my colleague Mark Lazarowicz. He said that the leader of the majority group on the Edinburgh district council had apparently said something unforgivable—that the council had to bear in mind its commitment to provide new services. I do not think that that is something of which he should be


ashamed. Commitments have to be tempered in every authority by the realities of the situation and balances have to be struck.
The Secretary of State and I might have a disagreement about where that balance should be struck, but I find it offensive that he should suggest that it is some kind of grotesque, absurd or ludicrous proposition that someone looking at the social problems in Edinburgh's peripheral housing schemes or some of the inner-city areas of Edinburgh should consider improving services and tackling those problems.
If the Secretary of State intends to intervene, perhaps he can deal with this point.
If we look at the other part of the equation of that area, at the Lothian region budget meeting we had an extremely well-documented account of what the alternative is. It came from a man who is admired as the sort of civilised face of the new Conservative party; someone who is still clinging on to some of the older civilised values, despite the efforts of the chairman of the party and his dominating philosophy. I refer to Conservative Councillor Brian Meek. Brian Meek was suggesting the abolition of welfare rights and pensioners' free bus passes. He was suggesting the privatisation of Hillend ski centre and seven old people's homes, as well as a number of other items of that type.
I really do not think that the Secretary of State can suggest, in the face of the grant allocation made in Edinburgh and the cut that occurred in Glasgow, that if they had responsible people at the helm, good Tories, men of integrity, men who could manage a bawbee or two, who knew how to make ends meet, they could cut back on our present extravagances, as he would see them; they could reduce the poll tax without hurting vulnerable people, without doing genuine and real damage to services; and they could carry out the kind of policies that even a moderate such as Brian Mack is having to suggest in the Lothian region.
It is a real problem, which to some extent relates to the philosophical divide between us and our views about community and the duty of a council, but it also goes back to the Secretary of State and his grant allocations. The same applies to the regions. Although the figures are less dramatic, the amounts are larger and therefore the variations are just as significant. The grant allocation has increased by 13·2 per cent. in the Borders; by 13·1 per cent. in Dumfries and Galloway; by 12 per cent. in the Highlands; and by 10 per cent. in Grampian. Then there is a substantial drop—a chasm in local government financial terms—until we reach Lothian and Strathclyde which have received 4·6 per cent. and 3·8 per cent. respectively.
We cannot banish the problem by saying that they are black and white figures on a page and they mean nothing. Inevitably they will present dilemmas for councillors and burdens for poll tax payers. If the Secretary of State were prepared to concede that, perhaps we could have a reasonable argument.
One of the great tales about the poll tax is that it strengthens local authority accountability. I believe that the present message—although it may change over the years—is that what matters is the grant that a local authority receives and that conditions the poll tax that has to be paid.
I shall take just two examples, which are not politically contentious because the authorities concerned are not in

the eye of the political storm and have not been singled out by the Secretary of State for criticism or sarcasm. Gordon district council has cut its community charge by 2 per cent. If I remember correctly, that represents a £1 reduction. It could do that not because it had been careful and prudent with its expenditure, in the Secretary of State's terms. I am told that its spending is going up from £5·6 million to £8·5 million. It has nothing to do with the discipline of reducing the poll tax and calling extravagant councillors to heel. That massive increase in expenditure may have been justified. It was possible because its aggregate Exchequer grant and its non-domestic rate income had gone up by 33 per cent.
Clydebank council is increasing its poll tax imposition by 24 per cent., yet its spending has risen by only 2 per cent. The reason is that its aggregate Exchequer grant and non-domestic rate income has gone up by less than 0·5 per cent. That is the message. It has nothing to do with all the claptrap about accountability, and everything to do with the Secretary of State and the sums that he does mysteriously and secretly in the recesses of St. Andrews house.

Mr. Rifkind: I am delighted to hear the hon. Gentleman say that reductions in the community charge have everthing to do with the grant given by the Scottish Office. Will he join me in condemning Labour-controlled Stirling district council, which, despite an increase in grant of more than 20 per cent. for the forthcoming year, proposes not to reduce its community charge or even to maintain it at its existing level, but to increase it by 18 per cent.—more than twice the level of inflation? Does that not fly in the face of what the hon. Gentleman has just said?

Mr. Dewar: It certainly establishes that the performance of Stirling and the decisions taken by the council are out of line with many other parts of the country. I do not condemn that. It is up to the electors in Stirling, who have been advised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman and, more shrewdly, by the local Member of Parliament over many years to repudiate that policy. They have not done so. The Secretary of State may think that the people of Stirling are barmy and do not know what is in their own best interests, but if he believes in democracy, he had better recognise that that formula has gained the approval of a sufficient number of people to continue to elect that council.
I am talking about the general position in Scotland, and I repeat that many of the difficulties that have been mocked rather unsympathetically by the Secretary of State relate to the grants. The general position is exactly as we predicted. COSLA reckoned that the 7·5 per cent. added under the revenue support grant settlement would mean average increases in the poll tax of about 12 per cent.—and that is exactly what is happening now.
Although it would not be fair to other hon. Members to have a major debate about it, I must tell the Secretary of State that almost everything we have said about the social justice of the poll tax and the problems of administration and collection have been fully justified. I have to warn the House, having spent half an hour yesterday struggling—I make no apologies for that—to understand the intricate workings of the new transitional allowance, that the problems that we all anticipate in April in calculating the transitional allowance for next year, making the back payments for this year and adjusting the entire rebates


system will be a nightmare. I believe that it will bring a system which is already disliked and widely considered to be unworkable into ultimate disrepute.
I should like to ask the Under-Secretary of State to say a word or two about the business rate and the non-domestic rate. I understand that the Government have decided that £80 million should be made available to reduce the rate poundage by 6·25 per cent. across the board. That is an interesting decision, because it could have been used to take out some of the peaks and to help areas particularly in the urban central belt where the rate poundage was very much higher. The Government decided to spread it thinly across Scotland, so perhaps the Minister could say why.
I should like a fairly specific answer to my second question. In England, the unified business rate poundage is 34·8p. I am told that the rate poundage that will have to be uniformly levied across Scotland to raise the present level of revenue is 55p. That gap has to be closed. I have heard authoritative figures ranging from £250 million to £450 million as the sum required to close that gap. I understand that the Scottish Office has consulted the CBI, and I know that the advice from COSLA was near the top of the range. Will the Minister say what he thinks that figure will be, how far we will have to go to plug that gap and what it will cost the public purse?
I close by briefly raising a major issue concerning the housing support grant, which used to be a major factor in local Government finance, particularly for district councils. When the present Government took office, 39 per cent. of council house costs came from the housing support grant. The figure is now 7 per cent. It reached a peak of about £228 million, and it is now down to £60 million. It was £60 million last year, and this year it will remain unchanged.
The Minister may say that I should be grateful that it has not been cut further, but as interest rates are higher than they were, they are eating into what is available for genuine housing work, and the figures take no account of inflation. We now have an HSG which will mean higher rents or will handicap authorities in tackling the real problems of deterioration of fabric.
The Under-Secretary of State says a great deal in a pleasant style about the Government's generosity in housing finance. The capital consents and the housing revenue account for 1990–91 compared with that for 1989–90 shows that the Government allocated £474 million in public sector housing capital allocation. In the coming year, the figure will be £420 million. That is a reduction of £53 million and a real terms drop of close on £100 million.
I know that I will be told that the net consent is being increased from £145 million to £189 million and that that is a measure of the Government's generosity, but if the net consent were being decreased and capital receipts were being increased, I would be told that I was being extremely silly and short-sighted in considering the net consent because all that matters is the total amount that will be spent.
If the total amount that will be spent is what matters, there will be the substantial drop that I have just outlined. The problems that I see every weekend in my constituency, and the problems faced by tenants in my constituency and

in those of my hon. Friends, make me sceptical and cynical about the well-tailored rhetoric that emerges from the word processors in Dover house and St. Andrew's house.
The housing support grant has been reduced to a shadow of its former self. Over the years, it has been cut ruthlessly. If it had been maintained at the level of the early 1980s, we would now be debating a cumulative increase in local authority resources of billions of pounds. Against that, we recognise the miserable inadequacies and desperate need of the Secretary of State to tilt at windmills rather than talk about the realities that he has so sadly neglected.

Sir Hector Monro: I have suffered three misfortunes today. First, I have been done out of my Burns supper by this business tonight; secondly, I have had a bit of masonry whistling around my room upstairs and have been locked out; thirdly, I am having to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). I think that I would rather have seen his holiday snaps.
I shall begin by considering housing, because it is an important issue in Scotland. Last year, the Government set up Scottish Homes, so we must look forward to better standards in the foreseeable future. I know that it will play its part in improving the old Scottish Special Housing Association housing and working with housing associations to develop housing in Scotland.
The housing support grant is a key part of housing management. Housing management involves considering the problems not only of damp, condensation, repairs and rents but of vandalism, bad neighbourliness, noise and the general feeling that the environment of housing estates is not what it should be. We must also consider the problems of waiting lists and homelessness. I pay tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the work that they have been doing on urban projects, which often improve rather miserable areas.
Over the past 10 years, the Government have increased housing investment by 2 per cent. per annum in real terms, whereas under the Labour Government of 1974–79 it declined by 8 per cent. per annum in real terms. There is no doubt but that the Government have given housing a high priority.
I welcome the impact of the sale of council houses, which is what tenants wanted. I am glad that, despite the opposition of the Labour party and Labour-controlled councils, we have sold so many over the past 10 years.
Capital allocations, which are extremely important, have doubled over the past five years. I welcome that increase, and when I raised it with my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) before Christmas, he assured me that the aggregate for this year would increase by £64 million, or 50 per cent. That should enable local authorities to maintain expenditure, but the Government recognise that increases are necessary in some of the worst areas.
I am glad that the two districts that I represent—Nithsdale, and Annandale and Eskdale—are receiving allocations far above the national average of £559 per house. Annandale and Eskdale will receive £727, and Nithsdale £815. That is of particular benefit to Nithsdale, where the public sector contribution to housing is increasing by 67 per cent. In Annandale and Eskdale, it is


increasing by 16 per cent. Various adjustments have been made in Annandale following the Lockerbie disaster, in which my right hon. and learned Friend was so helpful by providing finance for the rehabilitation of damaged houses.
Nevertheless, the Government have recognised that much remains to be done by making available additional money in the Lochside area of Dumfries. That continuing high investment has allowed the council to undertake many projects. I know that there has been a small national increase in non-housing revenue account grants, but districts in my area have above average allocations. Improvement grants are one of the key ways of quickly improving housing. Rural cottages are not only attractive to live in but enhance the countryside if they are in a proper state of repair. I am in favour of giving as much non-HRA support to district councils as possible.
The Government have allocated substantial sums for the revenue support grant. However, most authorities—but, I am glad to say, not all—have increased expenditure by more than the rate of inflation. I very much doubt whether local authorities would have increased expenditure so rapidly if they had been working under the old rating system. Over the past two years, they have taken the opportunity to increase expenditure and blame that on the community charge and the Government. This year, they cannot blame the Government for cutting expenditure, because almost all local authorities are receiving a substantial increase in expenditure.
I know that there must be a careful balance between prudent expenditure and what other people may regard as excessive experience. That is the key job of councillors. I remember when I was a councillor that councillors were only too keen to spend money on projects that were important to their ward or council. Sometimes restraint must be exercised, particularly when the country knows that the Government are keen to restrain inflation. Increases in local government expenditure are extremely inflationary and add to the problem of restraining interest rates.
This year, the Government have increased the revenue support grant by £242 million and adjusted the safety net. Most important, they have made moves towards the uniform business rate, which will be of great advantage to businesses, particularly small businesses, in Scotland. I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) has been given sufficient recognition for what he has done for the rating assessments of sports grounds. His action has been well received by all sports clubs and voluntary organisations in Scotland.
I hope that community charge payers will bear in mind the Labour party's proposals, which chop and change so much that one does not know where one is. But if the Labour party decides on the capital values option, the community charge payer will undoubtedly have to pay a great deal more.
Let us consider the regions and districts. Like the hon. Member for Garscadden, I find it virtually impossible to understand local authority accounting—the use of balances, the options relating to the community charge, the change from the client-group method to grant-aided expenditure and so on. It is very difficult to find true comparisons from one year to the next to establish what is going on. In 1989–1990, with inflation running at roughly 6·5 per cent., the grant to my region was 13 per cent., whereas this year, with inflation at 7·5 per cent., the grant

is 14·3 per cent. One might think that there was every reason to believe that the community charge could be stabilised and that a substantial amount would still be left to improve services. The region has had an increase in grant of 70 per cent. over five years, so it is disappointing to discover that the community charge is to increase substantially.
I know that councillors considered various options—increases of from zero to 15 per cent.—and in the end settled for 6 per cent. But add to that a 21 per cent. increase in water charges arising from more stringent requirements relating to water quality, and the overall increase is 8 per cent. That is a substantial increase in view of the money made available through the grant system.
Matters have been made worse by the two districts in the area, which have increased their expenditure substantially. In Socialist-controlled Nithsdale, where the grant increased by 18·9 per cent., expenditure has increased by no less than 28 per cent. That was voted through against strong Conservative opposition at a council meeting last night. That is the increase that the community charge payers of Nithsdale will now have to face. In Annandale and Eskdale, with a Liberal Democrat majority, grant is up by 17·3 per cent. and expenditure by 19 per cent. That simply will not do. It is not fair on the community charge payer.
We all want improved services, but we must be careful to ensure that improved services do not always mean substantially increased costs. I support my region in its efforts to attract industry, and I realise that that may cost more. I also realise that school boards may add to costs. But all that should be taken into account against the background of the substantial balances that local authorities can achieve.
The House ought to send out the message that prudent expenditure is essential if we are to make our way forward and maintain low inflation and, it is to be hoped, lower interest rates. We cannot go on spending and spending without facing the consequences. I hope that local authorities will consider their plans carefully. I was sorry to hear that a respected SNP regional councillor in Dumfries and Galloway had had to resign his membership of the party because he wanted the council to maintain the rule of law and collect the community charge. It was sad that his local party should have forced him out.
I gather, too, that the Member of the European Parliament for Dumfries and Galloway and the south of Scotland, Mr. Alex Smith, has had some difficulty recently. When I first saw headlines saying, "MP's bank balance frozen", I wondered whether they referred to me, but it turned out to be the MEP, who is setting an astonishingly bad example to the community charge payers of Scotland.
My message is this: let us have prudent expenditure. We really cannot go on increasing grant from central Government—from the taxpayer—and having it all put into the kitty to allow local authorities to spend more and more. If we do that, we shall become a banana republic, spending far more than we should. That is something we must avoid.

Mr. David Marshall: No matter how the Government try to dress up the figures, the fact remains—as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said—that they represent a cut


of £58 million in funds for council housing and, when inflation is taken into account, a reduction in total resources for council housing of £100 million.
Like all other hon. Members, I am grateful to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities for the excellent brief that it has sent us, which exposes the Government's meanness and the true extent, nature and effect of the cuts.
This debate should be not about figures but about human beings. It may be possible to argue about the need—or otherwise—for some items of Government expenditure, but in the name of decency and humanity, the House must agree that, in this day and age, everyone should have a fit and proper home in which to live, and that is especially true of pensioners and children. Unfortunately, that is simply not the case and the order will make matters worse. It will lead to increased rents and a further deterioration in the fabric of our council housing. All that many tenants have left is hope, and some of them do not even have that luxury.
No doubt my hon. Friends will deal with the general questions arising from the order, but I want to highlight what I believe to be a unique and scandalous catch–22 affecting between 2,000 and 3,000 people, which the order will do nothing to remedy. I refer to the 998 Winget-type houses constructed in 1924 in the Carntyne area of Glasgow and divided between the constituencies of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan and myself. They are the only houses of their type in the whole of Scotland. There are no such houses in Wales and only 2,568 in England.
The houses were classified as defective under the Housing Defects Act 1984. Arguments followed as to what should be done until 1988, when Glasgow district council applied for the houses to be declassified. In March 1989 the Secretary of State refused to agree to the council's request, so the houses are still officially classified as defective. The tenants took the matter up with the ombudsman who, to his credit, found in their favour. But his recommendation, in June last year, was simple: the council and the tenants should get together to discuss the problem. That took us back to square one. No advance of any kind had been made. One wonders what is the advantage of having an ombudsman's report in one's favour.
At present an insulation programme is under way in the Carntyne area, but Winget houses are excluded because they require extensive fabric repair. The housing department of Glasgow district council states that outstanding work on the houses includes recladding, window replacement and roof renewal, all directly related to the Winget method of construction. Someone whose house need a new roof or new windows is unlikely to be very comfortable in weather conditions such as those prevailing this week.
The estimated cost of those essential repairs—they are not repairs that should be undertaken only in ideal circumstances—is £12 million. The council says that it will not be able to carry out any of the work in the foreseeable future, and certainly not before 1995. The order will do nothing to help: it will probably make the time scale longer still. My hon. Friend the Member for Provan, the local councillors, the Winget action group, especially Mrs. Brawley and Mrs. Love, the Carntyne residents association, especially Mrs. Robertson and Mrs. Burns,

and I have all tried to get something done about the problem. Glasgow district council cannot help because it does not have the money. Sadly, the Government will not help because they do not want to help. Scottish Homes will not help financially. It will give what advice and counselling it can, but it will not help financially because, as it says, it has limited resources and other higher priorities. Appeals to the Scottish Office and to the Prime Minister fell on both stony and iron ground.
The tenants are not political pawns to be used and abused as politicians see fit. Many of them are pensioners who have been tenants of their homes for over 60 years. They have always paid their rents and rates and have never been in arrears. They have probably paid for their houses several times over and their reward is to be trapped in houses which no one will repair. They will be left to rot unless something is done. No politician can possibly justify ignoring their plight.
We heard earlier about damage to the Palace of Westminister. No doubt, however many millions of pounds that damage amounts to, the money will be found to put it right immediately or as soon as the work can be carried out. But not even a penny will be found to put right the disrepair of the 998 homes of those 2,000 to 3,000 people in the Carntyne area of Glasgow. On Robbie Burns' birthday, it is sad to see that man's inhumanity to man continues unabated.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Galloway: It was a good ending.

Mr. Marshall: A better one than that will follow.
I understand that the housing support grant formula takes into account economic conditions. Glasgow has the eight constituencies with the highest unemployment in Scotland. Surely that factor merits the allocation of additional resources to tackle the appalling housing conditions which, sadly, persist in many part of the city. My constituents have a perfectly good case for sueing Glasgow district council under the Public Health (Scotland) Act 1897 and, in all probability, they would win their case. But the only result would be that the council would have to rob Peter to pay Paul. The citizens of Glasgow would be no better off.
Specific Government assistance is needed to resolve the problem. It must be recognised that this is a special and urgent case. I appeal to the Secretary of State and to the Minister to do something positive. They should begin by convening a meeting of the tenants' representatives, Glasgow district council, Scottish Homes and the Scottish Office to discuss what action to take. That would give the tenants some hope, which is the very least that they deserve.

Mr. Bill Walker: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Dumries (Sir H. Monro), I should have preferred to be in Scotland this evening remembering the birth of our bard and enjoying good company. We are here because the official channels agreed to have this debate tonight. I have been told by those who do not understand, "You will be finished by 7 o'clock so you can get to a Burns supper." One would have to be pretty clever to travel from here to a Burns supper in Perthshire.
Like the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall), I wish to speak about housing. Housing is


important and many of our citizens depend on properties owned either by a local authority or some other state body. I welcomed the setting up of Scottish Homes. Such a body was long overdue. I am particularly pleased that it is carrying out a survey into rural areas, and I have suggested to Scottish Homes that it should consider places such as Aberfeldy.
Aberfeldy is an interesting place. It is one of the places in Scotland where there have always been more jobs than people to fill them. That is because businesses there are prosperous and doing well. They have to bus people from Blairgowrie to Aberfeldy. Anyone who knows the area will know how far that is and how difficult a journey it can be in winter months. We need to build low-cost housing that could be made available to people who want to work in the Aberfeldy area. I hope that Scottish Homes will take up my suggestion and do just that.
Several hon. Members have mentioned the community charge. The registration and collection system in Tayside region is different from that of anywhere else in Scotland and, as far as I know, in the United Kingdom. Every time there is a change in the amount due, an individual receives a new book. Some people have had three or four books. One can imagine the impact of that on elderly pensioners who did not understand what the first book was about. They may request a change because their conditions have altered. They then have to be given a second book. If that is not right, they are given a third book, and some are on their fourth book. That is appalling; something will have to be done.
For some interesting reason, a rumour is spreading round Tayside about my position with regard to the community charge. Why anyone should imagine that I do not support the community charge is beyond me. Some scurrilous people have put it about that I have not paid my community charge. I wish to place on record the fact that I and my family have paid our community charge. Like most other hon. Members, I have registered for the standard community charge at my flat in Westminster. I do not understand where those mischievous rumours have come from.

Mr. Wilson: May we take it that there is no reason why the hon. Gentleman's name would not appear in the public register?

Mr. Walker: None whatever. I have not looked at the public register so I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman whether I am on it. I see no reason why my name and those of my wife and daughters should not be there. I have commented on the unique collection and registration system in Tayside, so nothing would surprise me. The only thing that I know for certain is that I have paid. Like most people on Tayside I pay by standing order through the bank. A debit appears on my bank statement so someone is receiving the money. If it is not going into the system properly, it is not my fault.
On Tayside the administration of one district council is controlled by the Scottish National party. Contrary to the views expressed in the House by SNP members, the SNP in Angus recommends that people should pay the community charge, and it is collecting it. That is interesting because we are told that the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) will not pay his community

charge. It will be interesting to see what happens when he does not pay. Other people in Angus will have to pick up the tab.
I also draw attention to the fact that Provost Murray of Perth and Kinross district council, another distinguished member of the SNP who attends the convention to which I shall refer later, has put it on record that he believes that people should behave properly and pay their community charge. As ever, the SNP speaks with different voices. That is why Hamish Watt, Flora Iles and other distinguished councillors have had to leave the SNP. They can no longer stomach the illegal activities that it recommends.
Last Friday we had a rare opportunity to debate the Labour party's policies. It tells us a lot about the Opposition's policies that no Back-Bench Member from any of the Scottish Opposition parties was present. That is not surprising, because many of them were attending the sham convention in Scotland, where they can achieve nothing. All that they can do is talk. They did not attend this House, where changes can be made.
I realise that many hon. Members wish to speak so I shall not speak at great length. If we are to believe the leaks that appear in the Scottish newspapers, the Labour party proposes to replace the community charge with a tax. I use that word carefully. It will bring in a tax based on property valuations. They call it a fair tax, but it is still a tax.
That must raise the constitutional question whether it is possible to have a tax in Scotland that is different from the taxes in the rest of the United Kingdom. If the Opposition are not aware now that that raises a constitutional problem, they certainly would be if they ever tried to introduce it.
Another important point is that we are not discussing a charge. Rates are a charge but—[Interruption.]

Mr. Wilson: That is a nice use of language.

Mr. Walker: No, it is not just a nice use of the English language. I had to obtain Mr. Speaker's ruling on this some time ago. The community charge is a charge. Indeed, the community charge is a community charge. It is nor a poll tax. Opposition Members should not persist in trying to legitimise something like that because they might find themselves in some difficulty if they tried to introduce it and used the word "tax". They might find that people in the other House would take exception to there being different taxes in Scotland and in England because of the constitutional position. If the Labour party had a different form of tax in Scotland from that in England, the question arises whether Scotland is to be used—in the words of the Labour party—as "a guinea pig". If so, the Labour party should come clean and tell us exactly what it is going to do.
There is no question why Scottish Opposition Members were not here last Friday—it was because they cannot answer for their proposals, which are flawed and full of leaks. I shall go further and say that, like their proposals for devolution, these proposals are flawed, fraudulent and unworkable. At the next election, despite all their hoo-hah and brouhaha about the community charge, Labour Members will have to tell the people of Scotland their alternative. That alternative will be dissected and analysed and, as on so many previous occasions, the Labour party will be found wanting. That is when the Opposition will find that their support begins to evaporate.

Mrs. Ray Michie: In his opening remarks, the Secretary of State said that we are here for our annual debate on revenue support grant. It seems as though nothing has changed. Everything sounds the same. The Government continue to show indifference to local councils about the levels of revenue support grant.
The poll tax is now in being in Scotland, but a number of authorities have had to increase it in an effort simply to maintain services. Even with adjustments to compensate for the loss of non-domestic rates, £13 million, still has to be found in Scotland. Costs are increasing daily for councils, which are facing growing pressures on their social work departments as they struggle to meet the needs of an aging population, the costs required to run their school boards and horrendous burden of administering and collecting the grossly unjust, "unworkable" and "fraudulent" poll tax—to echo some of the words of the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker).
The poll tax is a terrible mess, as can be seen from the number of irate letters that I believe we are all receiving from our constituents, protesting at the muddle and at the number of poll tax demands that are wrong, to say nothing of the costs incurred by councils that are having to pay sheriff officers to chase those who are in default.
The Minister is aware of the reduction in revenue support grant in my constituency of Argyll and Bute. My council, which is not profligate, firmly believes that that is the result of the formula and the method used for calculating the level of grant. Over the years, on a variety of occasions but without success, the council has tried to persuade Scottish Office officials that the method used for calculating the support grant is unfair and does not take fully into consideration the difficulty of providing services to communities in remote and island areas. The problems in Argyll and Bute are similar to those experienced by the island councils—in fact, they are probably worse. My constituency contains 28 inhabited islands in its total area of 3,000 square miles.
The Minister has written to me on this subject, and I shall certainly take up his invitation to meet him to discuss it. However, that might not be necessary if the Minister could assure me that he will ask his Scottish Office officials to help if I ask Argyll and Bute district council to present a detailed case for change to the distribution committee. I hope that we can get this settled once and for all, so that the problem does not recur year after year. I hope that the Minister can assure me that his Scottish Office officials will give some help to the council.
I am aware of the time, so I shall speak only briefly about the housing support grant. The last figure I have heard is that there are now 29,000 homeless people in Scotland, which is quite disgraceful. Funding for hostels run by the local authorities still comes from the housing revenue account. Therefore, tenants are having to pay the cost of housing the homeless through their rents.
The proportion of those costs funded through rents has increased from 47 per cent. to 92 per cent. in the past 10 years. As the Government frequently tell us, the number of council house tenants is in decline—although, I believe, not to the extent that the Government would like—and the burden on current tenants has therefore become much greater.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Does my hon. Friend agree that the problem is particularly acute in north-east Scotland because of the high cost of renting and buying houses in the private sector? Banff and Buchan, and Aberdeen and Gordon have had record increases in homelessness compared with any other part of the country. Does my hon. Friend agree that those authorities need help to enable them to deal with the problem in a way that does not disadvantage existing tenants?

Mrs. Michie: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point. Providing for homeless people should be the responsibility of the whole community, which is why I plead for funding to be transferred from the housing revenue account to the housing support grant or some other means to be found. The importance of this issue was acknowledged as long ago as 1968, when the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1968 allowed for the "hostel proportion" of housing support grant.
Last year, the Minister said that he recognised that it was a problem and stated that he would ask the Department to write to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to seek its considered views on the extent to which the cost of these and similar services should be excluded from housing revenue accounts. I should like to know what progress the Minister has made, if any, because it appears to take the Government an enormously long time between supposedly recognising a problem and taking practical action to remedy it.
I am especially concerned about housing in rural areas, which requires a different approach from that for urban areas because distribution is focused far more on elderly households from low socio-economic groups. There are estimated to be at least 24,700 "below tolerable standard" properties in rural Scotland. The Minister may wish to excuse the level of housing support grant to local authorities on the grounds that Scottish Homes is now in existence, but even its level of funding leaves much to be desired if we are to meet the real need and to build the type of houses that are required for young people, for single or married people without children, for retired people, for the single middle-aged, for divorcees, widows and widowers, to say nothing of those who live in winter lets, caravans and tied houses.
The Minister knows of my concern about the sale of school houses in sparsely populated communities in my constituency. Once the school house is sold, where on earth is the new teacher supposed to live? There is little choice because demand exceeds supply, and there is really nothing available for them. I give the House the example of the Ross of Mull on the island of Mull, where at least eight local families need housing. Three of the people involved are the local teacher, a home help and the postman. They should not find themselves in a position where they cannot get a house.
Even if houses come on the market, they are snatched up by incomers who can afford a high price. Locals everywhere in rural Scotland are being priced out of the housing market—the hon. Member for Tayside, North referred to this.
I would like to pay tribute to Scottish Homes for its consultative document on rural housing. Although it leaves many questions unanswered—it deliberately poses questions—it is a genuine and commendable attempt to address the real issues and it shows vision and foresight in asking, for example, whether measures must be taken to


reduce competition from second home and retirement home buyers, and whether councils should seek balanced communities and controls in targeted areas on the resale of houses so that they are retained within low-cost home ownership initiatives in priority areas.
This has been done in England, where the Government have sponsored a rural housing initiative to build 1,800 housing association houses in villages each year on land, planning consent for which is restricted to housing associations catering exclusively for local needs. This is the sort of foresight and enterprise—the great vogue word—that is required, and I will fully support any moves in such a direction. The Minister and the House need to know that resentment is building up in many parts of Scotland among many local people who are unable to get houses. This is a serious situation which I do not like and which I do not believe the Minister approves of either.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: Mention has been made of the poll tax which hon. Members on the Government Benches call the community charge. There is one thing that I would like to get on the record: severe hardship is being caused by the poll tax in my area. Many families face bills of over £1,000, and they do not know where the money will come from. The Government should look at the difficulties in areas where unemployment is high and where the few jobs going are low-paid.
It does not help matters when people like the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) come to my constituency and tell people, some of whom are in the hands of illegal loan sharks, that they should not pay the poll tax, telling them that it will be all right, they will not go to jail but they might get their furniture lifted.

Mr. Sillars: You cannot get your furniture lifted.

Mr. Martin: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) says that people cannot have their furniture lifted, but my understanding of warrant sales is that they can.

Mr. Sillars: You are wrong.

Mr. Martin: I may be wrong, and it is up to the hon. Member to contradict me, but one thing that is certain is that the poorest of the poor will come out of a warrant sale very badly. It is all right for hon. Members to say that warrant sales will not do a great deal of harm. They do not do a great deal of harm to people earning £26,000 a year; but we are dealing with people who have taken a lifetime to get their bits and pieces together. Already, people have been on the telephone to me, telling me that they are in difficulties because they took the advice of a Mr. Tommy Sheridan, a Trotskyist leader, and the hon. Member for Govan. I just think that hon. Members should be careful in the advice that they give when they tell people that they are not going to do something, because the circumstances for some of the people sitting in the audience are different.
What is more, it ill becomes officials of Strathclyde region who are community workers employed by the authority collecting the poll tax to give advice like this. I blame not the councillors but some of the community workers who are organising these meetings in their own time. It is hypocrisy to pick up a wage from an authority which is collecting tax while at the same time telling the

people they are supposed to advise not to pay it. Once again, some of these people are earning a good shilling or two while giving this advice to the poorest of the poor.
A lot of money is going into housing estates at present from this grant and from previous grants, from both central Government and from local government. Impressive things have been done in my constituency and other parts of Glasgow in doing up houses, but something will have to be done about the environment. People are proud of their houses and their tenement flats, but many tell me that they are ashamed to bring people into their street—not the home but the street. Graffiti cover the tenement closes.
The Secretary of State may well blame the local authorities and the local authorities the Secretary of State. Surely both parties can get together to do something about the environment. It would cost a small amount compared with what is being spent on rehabilitating homes.
While we are talking about the environment, surely something can be done about tenants who own dogs which have aggression bred into them—pitbull terriers, rottweilers and alsatians—and which are allowed to roam housing estates. I have heard it said that if there were no bad owners there would be no bad dogs, but that is small consolation to someone who walks into his own street and is attacked by animals which have been let loose. Some of them are used to stop policemen raiding houses for drugs. Surely we can legislate to do something not only about the aggression of these animals but about the dirt they leave in our parks and streets. It makes people feel ashamed when they have relatives from England, Canada and America coming into an area that they were once proud of.
The Secretary of State failed to give me an answer to a problem in high-demand areas in our council estates. These houses have been sold off and, as he knows full well, some have changed hands as often as three times since the sale of council houses began. The Minister will tell me and other hon. Members that Glasgow has a surplus of housing stock. When I was a councillor for Govan, if I could get the best house in Springburn for a Govanite he did not want to move, because Govan was the area where he had been brought up, where his mother and father came from, and where his wife's family came from, and it was the community to which he belonged.
The problem is the same in the rural areas: no one wants to leave the village where he was brought up. The people of Springburn do not want to leave Balornock, Barmulloch and the Carron scheme; they want houses next to their mothers and grandmothers and other relatives. In the high-demand areas, people have to find £30,000. That is unfair in an area with some of the highest unemployment rates in the country. The Minister should look into that.
Commendable work is going on in housing action areas and in areas for which Scottish Homes is responsible. The people running these organisations tell me that they do not have the same fear as local authorities about the rehabilitation of the houses. The Government are prepared to put more finance into rehabilitation, but what is the point, in places like Dennistoun, of rehabilitating the houses to a high standard and then allowing motorways to be shoved through the middle of the district? Residents complain to me that, although their houses are excellent, they would need double glazing and more soundproofing because of the heavy traffic on the road which the Secretary of State approved.
I know that the Secretary of State will say that it is a Labour-controlled authority that is building the roads. I have the highest regard for Strathclyde, but it is impossible to talk to its road officials. There is motorway madness at its worst. If people are to get beautiful homes, and if Government money is to be spent on rehabilitation—we are talking about 90 per cent. Government aid—surely there should not be a motorway just outside with cars going along at 50 or 60 mph. I ask the Minister to consider that.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It may be convenient for hon. Members to know that the replies to the debate will begin at 6.40 pm. If hon. Members speak for about five minutes each, I shall be able to call most of them.

Mr. David Lambie: May I point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that the three hon. Members from my party who have spoken are all associated with the city of Glasgow? We know that Glasgow is a city of culture this year, but Glasgow is not Scotland. If the remaining time is to be divided, I think that you should call Members from throughout Scotland and not concentrate on the city of Glasgow.
This week we have had a series of similar debates on England and Wales, yet those debates were totally different, because housing support grants and housing orders affect only a small number of people in England and Wales. In the south of England, the number is insignificant. It is only when we move north into Scotland that we are speaking on behalf of the majority of people, because in Scotland most people are still tenants who are affected by the orders. When so many people are concerned, it is a disgrace that there are so few hon. Members here.
Several hon. Members have said that, during the 10 years of Conservative Government, we have seen an attack on council housing. The Government have moved money from public sector housing into the private sector. Where has all the money gone? A total of £7 billion has gone to owner-occupiers through mortgage tax relief. The Government have taken money from the pockets of tenants and given it to owner-occupiers. In doing that, they have moved money from Scotland to the rich south of England. The Government have been like Robin Hood in reverse, taking money from tenants in Scotland and giving it to the rich in the south of England who have too much money already.
At a time when we are discussing further reductions in the money available for housing in Scotland, the Prime Minister, we are told, is recommending that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should increase the limit for mortgage tax relief from £30,000 to £50,000, or perhaps £60,000, so as to give further help to owner-occupiers in the south of England. That is totally different from the case that the Secretary of State is making about the need to claw back money from council tenants.
Most people in Scotland are afraid of Scottish Homes. They believe that it has been established by the Government as a Trojan horse to attack public sector housing, without appearing to be an attack by the

Conservative Government. A large number of houses in my area that were formerly owned by the Scottish Special Housing Association are now under the control of Scottish Homes. People are up in arms. Tenants' and residents' associations are campaigning against the policies of Scottish Homes.
I and the Labour party accept that we cannot stop the Government's policy of the tenant's right to buy. It is a bad policy in principle, but the people have accepted it, and so has the Labour party. Therefore, tenants should have the right to buy. What is Scottish Homes doing? In my constituency, when a house becomes vacant, it is putting that house up for sale. Scottish Homes tells me that these are so-called economic expansion houses—in other words, houses for incoming workers. Surely it is a poor reflection on the new town of Irving when it is said that houses are no longer needed for incoming workers.
There are 4,000 people on the waiting list for Cunninghame district and 1,000 on the waiting list of Irving development corporation. Scottish Homes is beginning to sell houses that are lying empty, but they should be tenanted from the waiting list of Cunninghame district council.
I have been informed that Scottish Homes intends to go further and to announce at some date that every house that becomes vacant, whether or not it is an economic expansion house, will be put up for sale. When the Under-Secretary of State replies to the debate, I want him to confirm or deny that that is the future policy of Scottish Homes.
I have in my constituency 29,000 homeless, the majority of the homeless in Scotland. I want the Under-Secretary, on behalf of the people on the waiting list and the homeless in my constituency, to deal with Scottish Homes. It should not be the Trojan horse of the Tory party in public sector housing. People have the right to a home at a decent rent. They have the right to the same conditions enjoyed by people in the south of England. We should speak for the majority of the Scottish people. In the European elections, we made Scotland a Tory-free zone in Europe. If the Government do not change their policy and look after tenants better than owner-occupiers, after the next election Scotland will be a Tory-free zone in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Jim Sillars: I appreciate the position and I shall be as brief as possible. I want to take the Secretary of State up on his point he made about comparing the amount involved in non-payment of rates with that involved in the non-payment of poll tax. He pretended that they were exactly the same, but he was using two different and separate statistical bases.
Let us take the example of a street with 100 houses. Under the rating system, if 15 per cent. of the rates were not paid, that meant that 15 people did not pay. If we assume that there are four adults in each house, under the poll tax we are talking about 400 people in the street; if 15 per cent. do not pay the poll tax, that is 60 people. That is why there is a tremendous problem for the Government and the regional councils which are trying to collect the poll tax. They have to cope with the magnitude of the non-payment revolt. If the Government want to pretend that there is no problem, they are foolish.
There is a reason why non-payment of the poll tax is succeeding. It is different from every other Government


imposition. When the Government wanted to drive young people on to the YTS, they could withdraw benefit from them and we could protest, but do nothing about it. When the Government privatised British Steel and jeopardised Lanarkshire, we could protest, but do nothing about it because they were using the power of legislative and Executive control. The difference with the poll tax is that for it to be implemented the Government require the co-operation of every individual adult in Scotland. They have to register, put in a standing order or a direct debit, send a cheque or postal order, or go along with the money. When the people who have the power in the poll tax equation withhold their co-operation, the Government cannot implement it. Their flagship has struck the rock of non-payment.
In the limited time available I shall direct the main burden of my remarks to housing. Whatever the Secretary of State may say today, the Government have inflicted enormous damage on the standards of the people of Scotland. That is summed up extremely well in the brief that we received from Shelter, which states:
The net effect
of the Government's policies
has been that as capital allocations programmes have decreased (a reduction in real terms of £90 million for 1990–91 … vital new stock has not been built to replace ageing stock and stock lost through council house sales. At the same time the stock that does remain is likely to be poorer quality as the better quality stock is sold off, with high repair and maintenance costs, which are increasingly having to be met from a shrinking rental income base.
I echo what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) said—the problem is not about statistics, but about people. I can give three examples from my constituency. In Corkerhill, most of the houses have flat roofs, but require pitched roofs. There have been technical reports and the council acknowledges that those houses face severe dampness problems and have poor insulation. But the people of Corkerhill are fighting for resources with folk in other parts of Glasgow. Insufficient investment is going into the public housing sector to meet the needs of ordinary people.
An area called Moorpark in my constituency has been visited by representatives of every political party. Many hon. Members probably visited it during the Govan by-election. It has suffered a major drugs problem which we have tried to tackle. However, the underlying problem of the housing conditions remains. I was present at a meeting between the tenants association and Mr. Comley, the director of housing in Glasgow. He did not argue for one moment that the area did not require enormous investment or that it was an area of multiple deprivation. However, he had to tell the tenants association that there was no money available in the current five-year programme. Nobody knows what the score is beyond the current five-year programme.
My constituency also includes an area called Teucharhill with which many hon. Members will probably be familiar. This month, the Govan Initiative produced a special secure communities report from which it emerges that there is concern about windows caving in because they have not been replaced for years, dampness and lack of insulation. When we go to get some money, we are told that the council does not have it.
I do not absolve Glasgow city council of criticism; folk can criticise it for its allocation of funds to one part of the city or another and its inefficiency. But there is no question

but that the housing problems in Glasgow can be resolved only by central Government allocating the appropriate amount of resources to meet the people's needs. It is an indictment of the Government and each of us who represent Glasgow constituencies, that we hear such heartbreaking stories about housing when we sit down in our surgeries. The Government have created misery when people are entitled to a decent and harmonious life.

Mr. John Home Robertson: These debates can turn into flights of fancy about obscure statistics and heaven knows what else, but as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) and a number of my hon. Friends have said, we are talking about the conditions in which people in Scotland have to live. In far too many cases, their circumstances are well-nigh intolerable.
The House would do well to remember that today's proceedings set the scene for poll tax levels and the quality of service in every district and region in Scotland for the coming year. We now know that every one of my constituents, including the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), who will reply to the debate, will have to pay £407 a head in poll tax—whether it be the Parliamentary Under-Secretary with his means or people living just above the poverty line and income support level. That is the kind of arbitrary, unfair tax which this Government have imposed and local authorities are having to try to implement to fund hopelessly overstrained and overstretched local services. As hon. Members have said, tenants also face higher rents.
The poll tax system in Scotland today is a monstrosity for which the House must accept full responsibility. It was not just Douglas Mason who dreamed up the poll tax before he lost his seat on Kirkcaldy district council. It was not just Michael Ancram who dreamed it up or tried to force it through the House before he lost his seat in Edinburgh to my excellent learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths). The House forced through that tax and imposed it on the people of Scotland. It is small comfort to my constituents to see hon. Members representing English constituencies, who voted for the poll tax in Scotland, suddenly discovering that they do not like it after all when it is imposed on their constituencies.
This is a viciously unfair tax which applies to everyone, whether or not they can afford it. It is also an administrative nightmare, as those of us representing Scottish constituencies can confirm. I can think of many anomalies. For example, a nurse in my constituency is employed by a boarding school which requires her to live in for part of the time. She is a single person on low pay and she had to pay not only her personal poll tax because of her accommodation at work, but a double standard poll tax for her own flat. The tax is an administrative nightmare and grossly unfair.
When calculating the eligibility of local authorities For revenue support grant, the Government assume that all these debts will be paid; but they will not be paid, because it is such an inefficient tax. The trouble with the minority administration in the Scottish Office is that it exercises power without responsibility. That seems to have been the prerogative of the Tory party in Scotland during the past 10 years.
The Tories have no serious aspiration of winning political support in Scotland. They are content to rely on English Lobby fodder to see through their legislation in the House. They have the power to impose any kind of dog's breakfast on the people of Scotland—and that is what the poll tax is. Once the Conservatives have done their mischief, the elected local authorities and their officials have to try to maintain local services in schools and elsewhere which our people so desperately need.
Tonight's business sets the scene for local services in the coming year. When the Secretary of State opened the debate, he suggested that Lothian regional council should cut its budget—do away with pensioners' free bus passes, I suppose. But the local Labour authorities are elected to do a job in Scotland and, unlike the Minister, they have a right and duty to implement the policies on which they were elected.
In my last couple of minutes I shall concentrate on housing. I can certainly confirm what local authorities and Shelter have said about the housing crisis which people in Scotland are experiencing. The housing capital allocations are insufficient to meet the well-known need for investment in repairs and improvements, let alone build the new houses needed to meet the growing needs of people on waiting lists in every part of Scotland. It is intolerable that people have to live in cold, damp housing with windows that require replacement and, sometimes, unsafe wiring, because local authorities are not allowed to spend the money required to bring the houses up to standard.
East Lothian district council's borrowing allocation is £1·221 million on top of its projected receipts from council house sales. That is fully £5 million short of what the council requires to spend on its improvement and repair programme in the coming year. It is better than the position last year, when it had a negative capital allocation, but it is still not good enough.
We must not lose sight of the housing shortage. The Government do not seem to care how many people do not have houses so long as those who have them own them. If ever there was a case of warped principles, that must be it. In my constituency, 5,700 people are stuck on the district council's housing waiting list. Hon. Members hear about such cases in their surgeries. We must deal with young people just married having to live in their in-laws' overcrowded accommodation. What sort of way is that to begin a marriage?
The Conservatives, who claim to be the party of the family, govern Scotland. Local authorities cannot meet those needs. The present state of affairs is a scandal. Tonight in East Lothian, 20 families will be living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation because the local authority does not have homes to let to those people who urgently need them. It is a tragedy and a scandal, and the Government are responsible for it.

Mr. Brian Wilson: It is unfortunate that, at the end of the debate, we must cram in short speeches, largely because, in opening the debate, the Secretary of State treated us to an epic epistle to absent friends. He spoke for 40 minutes.
At the end of the debate, in marked contrast to what we had from the Secretary of State, we get down to the

nitty-gritty of our discussion. It is not about abstruse statistics or about calculations in the basement of the Scottish Office. It is about human beings, and in particular about the housing conditions in which they are having to live. Anyone who walks through the streets and is in touch with the real world of people who live in our constituencies knows that there are conditions which are appalling; that they are getting worse; and that authorities are being starved of resources by the Government.
A revealing figure is the housing revenue statistics that were accepted by the Government as the grant calculation figure for the management and maintenance of council stock. It is £407 per house; but the real figure which local authorities will announce next year is not £407 but £466. The difference between the two is represented by the cases we see in our surgeries and about which we read in letters concerning repairs and maintenance that cannot be carried out.
Give local authorities the resources to do a decent job on behalf of their tenants and they will do it, for they are crying out to do it; but producing bogus statistics and saying that it is £407 instead of £466 does not change the realities of the situation. It simply changes the script and the false basis on which the statistics are prepared.
The poll tax calculations produced by the Government are based largely on false assumptions about inflation and the performance needs of local government. All the time, we get a politically motivated picture. The Secretary of State is trying to build up that picture by saying, on the one hand, that profligate Labour councils are doing things that do not need to be done, are taking daft decisions and are creating services for which there is no demand. He speaks, on the other, of cautious, penurious Conservative councils which are watching every penny they spend.
Look in detail at the figures and the real picture becomes clear, while Scottish opinion polls show that 50 per cent. of the people support Labour policies and 16 per cent. support the Government.
Let us take a quick spin round Scotland to see some of the realities that lie behind the facade that the Government erects. It being Burns night, it is appropriate to go first to Ayr—
Auld Ayr, wham ne'er a town surpasses For honest men and bonnie lasses.
The Tory lead is down to a stump, and John Mackay has got the bump. In Ayr, there is a 40 per cent. increase in the revenue support grant settlement to the good Labour council, leading to a cut in the level of poll tax.
Move up the Ayrshire coast to Cunninghame and we find an increase of 13 per cent. in the poll tax. It is not difficult to see why there is that difference, recalling what Kyle and Carrick are getting. Whereas the latter has an increase of 40 per cent., the increase in Cunninghame is barely 3·5 per cent.
No wonder, when consulting that valuable organ of public opinion, The Largs and Millport Weekly News,—we find that the Leader of the Conservative group on Cunninghame district council is not attacking the Labour administration for a poll tax increase of 13 per cent. but congratulating that administration on keeping the increase to that figure. That newspaper reported:
The budget was welcomed as a fair one by Tory councillors. Group Leader Edith Clarkson said the committee convenors and officers had done 'very well' … The local Conservative councillor hit out at the lack of support from the Government who cut Cunninghame's revenue support grant. She expressed extreme concern over the lack of grant aid.


It is nice to know that there are Tories somewhere who have not yet fallen under the malign influence of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Stirling.
We move on to Strathclyde, also cited as a bogey figure despite years of fiscal responsibility since its inception. There can be a lower poll tax in Strathclyde, but at a cost. The Tory budget for the area, reported today involves £9 million-worth of cuts in education expenditure. Do the people of Strathclyde want that? They will have a chance to say when they vote in May.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said, it is interesting to see the cost when we cross to Lothian. Mr. Moderate Meek has put forward the Tory budget, which includes selling off seven old folks' homes and a ski slope, closing down welfare rights services and taking away concessionary bus passes. Any fool can make cuts, but everybody in Scotland must realise the price that would be paid for the figures that the Tories are putting forward. Those figures are based on cuts in the level not of luxury services but of necessities.
In Lothian this year they would sell off the old folks' homes—as they do a Bradford—and they would sell off a ski slope, thereby keeping the poll tax artificially low. Perhaps the Secretary of State will tell us what Lothian should sell next year or the year after that.

Mr. Home Robertson: Cemeteries?

Mr. Wilson: Perhaps.
Let it be clearly understood in Lothian that the basis of the Tory budget this year has involved selling off seven old folks' homes. Is that what the people of Lothian want? They too will have a chance to have their say in May.
We move to Tayside, where less political manipulation is going on with the poll tax. A range of budgets has been put forward in that area, varying from £280 by the Tories, £284 by the SNP—always a wee bit in the middle—and £285 by the Labour administration. Where there is political competition, with the parties aiming to be electable and wishing to maintain a decent level of services, all the calculations come out at about the same figure.
The Tories think that the poll tax can be used as a political game. They think that in Scotland, and now in England, it can be sold by saying that Labour councils mea high poll taxes and Tory councils mean low ones. People are not stupid. They are realising in Scotland, as they will come to realise in England and Wales, the potential that exists for the Government to manipulate the level of poll tax for political advantage.
Those who cannot appreciate that should consult the grant figures, which show an increase for Borders of 13 per cent. The increase in Strathclyde is less than 4 per cent. The increase in Edinburgh is 0·08 per cent.; in Bearsden and Milngavie, 51·23 per cent.; in Eastwood, 50·2 per cent.; and the decrease in Glasgow is minus 0·2 per cent.
Those are the statistics of political manipulation. The people of Scotland will not let the Tories, the architects and onlie begetters of the poll tax, off the hook when the statistics become available. As poll tax levels are set throughout Scotland, they are being seen as the products of political manipulation through grant calculations by the Secretary of State.
I want briefly to discuss housing support grant. Yet again, ordinary people whom we represent will face rent

increases this year of at least £2 to £3 as a direct result of Government policies. For 10 years, the Government's ideological motivation has been to drive people out of tenancy into owner-occupation. At least there was a political logic in that, when people could afford to buy council houses or move into starter homes because they thought that they would be no worse off. The tactic of the Government was to force up rents and send people into the private sector.
It can be argued that that was a fair political tactic, but now the position is different. People cannot now go into the private sector or pay their mortgages because of the Government's high interest rate policy. Now, the choice is not between becoming owner-occupiers and staying as high-rent council tenants; it is between massive rent rises—achieved by Government manipulation of grants—or mortgage misery. The Government and the Scottish Office are confronting the people of Scotland with the choice of rent rises or mortgage misery.
Finally, I support what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin). I have no truck with those who, for political advantage, urge poor people not to pay the poll tax in the hope that, at the end of the day, they will make political capital out of attacking local authorities for doing the job that they are legally obliged to do, which is to collect the revenue. As a Socialist and a member of the Labour party, I am proud that in its history Strathclyde regional council has never initiated a warrant sale. It never will do so against people whose need is genuine.
My contempt is profound for those who would try to make it impossible for the council to maintain that record—not for reasons of defending the poor, but out of malice in the hope of attacking that Labour authority. I have no time for those people. We will get rid of the poll tax in Scotland, as well as in England and in Wales, by getting rid of the Government. The poll tax will be one of the principal vehicles by which we do so.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I strongly reject the charge that there has been any manipulation in the grant, and I shall cite evidence. Stirling had its grant increased by 20 per cent., the Labour authority of East Kilbride by 33 per cent., Hamilton by 18 per cent., Kyle and Carrick by 30 per cent., Motherwell by 29 per cent., and Strathkelvin by 41 per cent. That is clear evidence that the distributions are done entirely on the basis of need, to equalise the needs of an authority on the basis of the arrangements agreed with COSLA, with the balances then distributed on a per capita basis.
There has been not only a 7·5 per cent. increase in the rate support grant but, taking into account other grants, an increase of 8·2 per cent. If authorities spend in line with the settlement, community charges, on average, need not rise by more than inflation. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfies (Sir H. Monro) that there is no doubt that if community charges higher than inflation are set, they will be a direct consequence of growth in spending and not the level of the settlement. The encouraging reality of the community charge is that it persuades the electorate to focus sharply on the validity of council spending plans.
On the safety net, the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) asked me a specific point concerning her district council. It was invited last year to submit a detailed paper to the distribution committee, explaining how it considers itself to be disadvantaged. So far, it has not done so, but the offer remains open. I strongly suggest that the council does that, as the distribution committee consists of local authority and Scottish Office representatives. The Exchequer buy-out of the safety net means that those authorities such as Grampian, Borders, Dumfries and Galloway, which contributed to the self-financing net last year, will receive their grant entitlement in full in 1990–91 and in future years.
I recognise that there are those who argue that we are giving too much grant to rural areas. Under the new grant system, it is our aim that prudent authorities would no longer be disadvantaged compared with high-spending authorities. The effect of the new system is now being seen, whereas previously it was practically obscured by the safety net. It is now working its way through to the advantage of Scotland.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) wanted me to speak about the business rate. The Government's policy on business rates has been widely welcomed. The across-the-board reduction of 6·25 per cent. in rate poundages is an important first step towards a common rate poundage, and further steps are planned to continue the process towards harmonisation.
The Government recognise the concern expressed by local authorities about the uncertainty of the yield of the non-domestic rating income. That is why we gave a commitment to consider redetermination of the RSG for 1990–91 in the light of actual rate yield.
The hon. Member for Garscadden asked for an estimate of the sum needed to eliminate the balance. The original estimate of the CBI was £250 million. We recognise that the effect of revaluation might affect that figure, and we will take that into account when considering further reductions in the business rates. We believe that the £80 million reduction will be a significant first step along the right road.
On the collection of the community charge, I agree with the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) that those who are in a position to pay the community charge should do so. It should be stressed to the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) that more than 1 million people in Scotland receive rebates—a higher number than the first Scottish Office estimates. I agree strongly with my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) that those who have the capacity to pay should do so.
It is especially significant that Angus district council, the sole nationalist-controled council in Scotland, should be busily collecting the community charge when the Scottish National party Members of Parliament are claiming that they are not paying. I suggest to the House that the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing. I remind them of the old New Zealand saying that the tree that is split is nothing but food for the ants.
The hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) raised the relevant matter of a hostel in his constituency. The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) raised a similar point. Consultations are taking place with

COSLA to the extent that hostel costs should continue to be charged to the housing revenue account. I regret that the consultations are not yet completed, but agreement in principle has been reached that the HRA should be restricted to the authorities' landlord function. Any change involves complex issues, but I hope that that will be completed before long and that revised guidance will be sent out.
As hon. Members will appreciate, there has been a £64 million increase in the net allocation. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) asked about the Winget houses. That is primarily a matter for the district council. The final allocations will be made in March and we will thoroughly investigate all available possibilities. If we are in a position to make a further allocation, we will do so, but I am not in a position to do so now.

Mr. Jimmy Wray: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: No, I must answer a few more points.
The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) failed to mention that East Lothian had a supplementary allocation in excess of £1 million a month ago. We will keep the points made by hon. Members in mind before final allocations are made in March. I agree with the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute that it is important for Scottish Homes to focus on not only low-cost home ownership but the problems of rural housing. That is why Scottish Homes was asked to go into it thoroughly, to prepare a report and to develop a rural housing strategy. The document, which I think is a good one, made many wide-ranging suggestions. I agree with Scottish Homes that the view of all those with an interest in rural housing should be aired. Only then will resulting policies be seen to be in the interests of all those living in rural Scotland. I hope that policies will be fully developed later this year, as I am sure they will be.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) raised the question of environmental considerations. As time has almost run out, I can only say that I will write to him.
Let me end by saying that our overall housing policies would have received the approval of the great Robert Burns, and tonight I commend them strongly to the House.

It being after Seven o'clock, MR. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order [19 January] to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the Motions.

The House divided: Ayes 278, Noes 167.

Division No. 50]
[7 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Benyon, W.


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Bevan, David Gilroy


Amess, David
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Amos, Alan
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Ashby, David
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Aspinwall, Jack
Boswell, Tim


Atkinson, David
Bottomley, Peter


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)


Baldry, Tony
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Bowis, John


Batiste, Spencer
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes


Bellingham, Henry
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Bendall, Vivian
Brazier, Julian






Bright, Graham
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Hind, Kenneth


Browne, John (Winchester)
Holt, Richard


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Hordern, Sir Peter


Buck, Sir Antony
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Burns, Simon
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Burt, Alistair
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Butler, Chris
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Butterfill, John
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hunter, Andrew


Carrington, Matthew
Irvine, Michael


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Irving, Sir Charles


Chapman, Sydney
Jack, Michael


Chope, Christopher
Jackson, Robert


Churchill, Mr
Janman, Tim


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Jessel, Toby


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Conway, Derek
Key, Robert


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Kilfedder, James


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Cope, Rt Hon John
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Couchman, James
Kirkhope, Timothy


Cran, James
Knapman, Roger


Critchley, Julian
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Curry, David
Knowles, Michael


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Day, Stephen
Lang, Ian


Devlin, Tim
Latham, Michael


Dorrell, Stephen
Lawrence, Ivan


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Dover, Den
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Dunn, Bob
Lightbown, David


Dykes, Hugh
Lilley, Peter


Eggar, Tim
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Emery, Sir Peter
Lord, Michael


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Evennett, David
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Fallon, Michael
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Favell, Tony
Maclean, David


Fenner, Dame Peggy
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fookes, Dame Janet
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Forman, Nigel
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Malins, Humfrey


Forth, Eric
Mans, Keith


Fox, Sir Marcus
Maples, John


Franks, Cecil
Marlow, Tony


Freeman, Roger
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


French, Douglas
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Fry, Peter
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gale, Roger
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Gardiner, George
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Mellor, David


Gill, Christopher
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Mitchell, Sir David


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Monro, Sir Hector


Gorst, John
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Gow, Ian
Moore, Rt Hon John


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Moss, Malcolm


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Gregory, Conal
Mudd, David


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Neale, Gerrard


Grist, Ian
Needham, Richard


Ground, Patrick
Nelson, Anthony


Grylls, Michael
Neubert, Michael


Hague, William
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Nicholls, Patrick


Hampson, Dr Keith
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hannam, John
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Norris, Steve


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Harris, David
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hayes, Jerry
Page, Richard


Hayward, Robert
Paice, James





Patnick, Irvine
Stokes, Sir John


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Pawsey, James
Summerson, Hugo


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Powell, William (Corby)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Price, Sir David
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Temple-Morris, Peter


Redwood, John
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Rhodes James, Robert
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Riddick, Graham
Thorne, Neil


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Thornton, Malcolm


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Tracey, Richard


Roe, Mrs Marion
Trippier, David


Rost, Peter
Trotter, Neville


Rowe, Andrew
Twinn, Dr Ian


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Ryder, Richard
Viggers, Peter


Sackville, Hon Tom
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Sayeed, Jonathan
Walden, George


Shaw, David (Dover)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Waller, Gary


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Warren, Kenneth


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Watts, John


Shersby, Michael
Wells, Bowen


Sims, Roger
Wheeler, Sir John


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Widdecombe, Ann


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Wilkinson, John


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wilshire, David


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Winterton, Nicholas


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wolfson, Mark


Squire, Robin
Wood, Timothy


Stanbrook, Ivor
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Yeo, Tim


Stern, Michael



Stevens, Lewis
Tellers for the Ayes:


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Mr. Alastair Goodlad and


Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)
Mr. Tony Durant.




NOES


Allen, Graham
Corbyn, Jeremy


Anderson, Donald
Cousins, Jim


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Cox, Tom


Ashton, Joe
Crowther, Stan


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Cryer, Bob


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Cummings, John


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Darling, Alistair


Barron, Kevin
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Battle, John
Dewar, Donald


Beckett, Margaret
Dixon, Don


Bell, Stuart
Dobson, Frank


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Bermingham, Gerald
Eadie, Alexander


Blair, Tony
Eastham, Ken


Boateng, Paul
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Boyes, Roland
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Bradley, Keith
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Fearn, Ronald


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Buckley, George J.
Fisher, Mark


Caborn, Richard
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Foster, Derek


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Fraser, John


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Fyfe, Maria


Cartwright, John
Galloway, George


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Clay, Bob
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Golding, Mrs Llin


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Gordon, Mildred


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Graham, Thomas


Corbett, Robin
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)






Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Nellist, Dave


Grocott, Bruce
O'Brien, William


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
O'Neill, Martin


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Home Robertson, John
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Hood, Jimmy
Pike, Peter L.


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Prescott, John


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Primarolo, Dawn


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Radice, Giles


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Redmond, Martin


Illsley, Eric
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Ingram, Adam
Reid, Dr John


Janner, Greville
Richardson, Jo


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Rogers, Allan


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Rooker, Jeff


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Rowlands, Ted


Kennedy, Charles
Ruddock, Joan


Kirkwood, Archy
Sedgemore, Brian


Lambie, David
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Leadbitter, Ted
Short, Clare


Leighton, Ron
Sillars, Jim


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Skinner, Dennis


Lewis, Terry
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Litherland, Robert
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


McAllion, John
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


McCartney, Ian
Soley, Clive


Macdonald, Calum A.
Spearing, Nigel


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


McKelvey, William
Steinberg, Gerry


McLeish, Henry
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Maclennan, Robert
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


McWilliam, John
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Madden, Max
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Walley, Joan


Marek, Dr John
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Wareing, Robert N.


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Maxton, John
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Meacher, Michael
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Michael, Alun
Wilson, Brian


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Winnick, David


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Worthington, Tony


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Wray, Jimmy


Morgan, Rhodri



Morley, Elliot
Tellers for the Noes:


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Mullin, Chris
Mr. John McFall.


Murphy, Paul

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 12th December, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Variation Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 12th December, be approved.—[Mr. Dorrell.]

Resolved,
That the Revenue Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 2Ist December, be approved.—[Mr. Dorrelli.]

Resolved,
That the Revenue Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1990, dated 8th January 1990, a copy of which was laid before this House on 9th January, be approved.—[Mr. Dorrell.]

Orders of the Day — London Local Authorities Bill [Lords]

Order for consideration read

Mr. Martin Redmond: rose—

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Harold Walker): The Question is, That the Bill be now considered.

Mr. Redmond: rose—

The Chairman: I apologise. I did not realise that the hon. Gentleman wished to speak.

Mr. Redmond: It is not often, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that people do not see me.
I should like to know who is in charge of the Bill and I hope that whoever it is will take this opportunity to enlighten the House on the Bill's aims and objectives.

The Chairman: Order. I was about to put to the House the Question that the amendments be considered. If the hon. Gentleman will let me put that Question, he can then make the points that he wishes to make.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the amendments be made.

Mr. Redmond: I hope that whoever is in charge of the Bill will take this opportunity to explain its finer details.
What does the proposed amendment on all-night cafés entail? I used to be a lorry driver and when I was working I liked to call into a café. I am not sure what restrictions the Bill seeks to place on them and I should welcome clarification on that. I should also like to know the extent of the powers that the Bill gives local authorities to restrict all-night cafes. Many tourists frequent London, our capital city, and they will want the cafes to be open, serving good quality food and tea.
The Bill talks about the restoration of gas and electricity supplies, but I am not sure whether the privatisation of the electricity and gas industries will have any effect on it. I am not sure when it kicked off in the Private Bill Office.

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying wide of the specific amendments. He should address himself to the amendments; he may find an opportunity to debate some of the wider issues on Third Reading.

Mr. Redmond: Am I to understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you intend to take the amendments en bloc or separately?

The Chairman: The Question, on the motion before the House, is that the amendments be made. The hon. Gentleman ought to speak to the amendments that are before the House. If, however, he wishes to deal with wider issues, it may be admissible, in a wider debate, for him to do so under the next motion for Third Reading.

Mr. Redmond: I am grateful for your clarification of the proceedings, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, I should like whoever is promoting the Bill on the Government side of the House to say why the amendments have been tabled. I understand that the promoters of private Bills are lawyers. I am anxious to know whether the amendments


have been tabled on account of bad drafting. I keep asking that question, but I am only getting blank looks from that side of the House.

The Chairman: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that, because he has the Floor, no other hon. Member has so far had the opportunity to respond to him. When he has finished his speech, we may find that an hon. Member is in charge of the Bill and is able to answer his question.

Mr. Redmond: But when I sit down you will certainly not allow me to stand up again Mr. Deputy Speaker, if no hon. Member on the Conservative Benches answers my questions. There is no certainty that any hon. Member who is sitting on the Government Benches will be prepared to explain why the amendments have been tabled.

The Chairman: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to comment further after the hon. Member who is in charge of the Bill responds, he may, with the leave of the House, do so. The House will not withhold its consent.

Mr. Redmond: I am grateful for your guidance, Sir. However, as the amendments have been tabled, they will be incorporated in the Bill. If a Conservative Member had clarified the amendments, I should not have had to stand up and ask questions. There have been occasions in the past when we have sought clarification from Conservative Members but have received none. My worry is that by means of these amendments somebody is trying to sneak something through.

Mr. John Bowis: I am not sure how we can help the hon. Gentleman. He has referred to hon. Members on Conservative Benches. Is he not aware that schedule 1 lists the participating councils? They include every single London borough—both those that belong to the Association of London Authorities, which is Labour-controlled, and those that belong to the Lond Boroughs Association, which is Conservative-controlled. I am sure that all hon. Members would like to help the hon. Gentleman if he could explain which of the amendments cause him concern.

Mr. Redmond: The hon. Gentleman is correct when he says that all the London boroughs are participating, but the lead authority is Westminster. I have grave reservations about an authority that is prepared to sell cemeteries so cheaply, without giving any thought to the consequences. I wonder, therefore, whether Westminster council, the lead authority, will make similar mistakes here.

Mr. Michael Shersby: It may assist the hon. Gentleman if I explain that the city of Westminster is promoting the Bill on behalf of the other London authorities. That has been the practice since the abolition of the Greater London council. The hon. Gentleman can rest assured that it is a necessary technicality that Westminster is taking the lead. By that means, all the London boroughs, controlled by whichever political party, have been given the opportunity to place this important Bill before the House.

Mr. Redmond: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Did Westminster consult all the local authorities involved?

Mr. Bowis: Of course it did.

Mr. Redmond: I am sorry, but I cannot assume anything, given what has happened in the past with private Bills.

Sir John Wheeler: If I am able to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I may address the House on the amendments to the Bill. That may assist the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond).

Mr. Redmond: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman. The tragedy is that earlier I saw no movement on the Conservative Benches. Had there been any movement, I should have remained seated and would have listened carefully to the explanations. My suspicions about the amendments are understandable when one reflects on what has happened in the past. We can only draw conclusions from those events. We must take great care when private Bills are considered. However, the hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) has assured me that he will explain why the amendments have been tabled. I intend, therefore, to sit down and to listen carefully to what he has to say. I shall then have to decide whether to divide the House on one or all of the amendments.

Sir John Wheeler: With the permission of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall address it on the amendments before us. They are essentially minor and purely technical, and are designed to improve the Bill. For example, the amendment on page 2, line 16, invites the House to leave out "1989" and to insert "1990". That is the nature of most of the amendments that the House is considering.
However, there is a slightly more substantial amendment at page 8, line 27. It relates to the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority. The promoters of the Bill—the city of Westminster, on behalf of the 30 London boroughs, including all the Labour-controlled boroughs and all the Conservative-controlled boroughs, as represented by their two associations, the Association of London Authorities and the London Boroughs Association—have agreed the contents of the Bill and the amendments that the House has been invited to consider.
The substantial amendment that relates to the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority has been tabled by the promoters because they are anxious entirely to meet the worthy objective of the authority, that the aims of the Bill should be clear and unambiguous. Therefore, I invite the House to approve the amendments. If I am required to deal in greater detail with the purpose of the Bill, I shall do so. However, I have reason to believe that the Bill is supported by the London boroughs and by all the others who are concerned with the good government of London.

The Chairman: Does the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) seek the leave of the House to speak again?

Mr. Redmond: No.

Question put and agreed to.

Amendments made.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That Standing Order 205 (Notice of third reading) be suspended and that the Bill be now read the third time.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Mr. Michael Shersby: I warmly welcome this Bill on behalf of the borough of Hillingdon, in which my constituency is situated. It is a very useful and important Bill which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) said, has the support of all London local authorities.
I am particularly glad to see clauses 23 and 24, which enable London local authorities to deal with the difficult problems of street trading and licensing street traders to operate in designated streets where it is believed that that is desirable. This is a separate question from the one asked by the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond), who was referring to something quite different—night cafés.

Mr. Redmond: While travelling round London one sees streets with market stalls in them. Will this Bill affect the people running those stalls?

Mr. Shersby: No. As I understand the Bill—this has been the subject of considerable discussion over the past five years or so—it gives local authorities in London the power to license those street traders. Westminster council, on which I had the privilege of serving for about 12 years, has very close contact with street markets in places such as Soho and elsewhere.
I am addressing the House on a quite different matter—street trading in the outer London boroughs such as Hillingdon, where the need for licensing has been clearly identified and is highly desirable. It is encouraging that all the London boroughs have signified their approval not only of this aspect of the Bill but of its many other apsects.
The Bill will benefit not only my constituents but all those who engage in street trading in one form of another by providing a proper system that is clearly understood by those involved in selling food and drink and those who wish to buy it.
I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Simon Hughes: In the past I have taken an interest in street trading matters and I know that the relationship between street traders and local traders has not always been very happy. I have a few questions which I expect the hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler), speaking for the promoters of the Bill, will be able to answer.
First, I heard what was said about all London local authorities now supporting the Bill. I should be grateful if it could be clarified whether, not only formally but, as far as the hon. Member for Westminster, North is aware, informally, there is no dissent from the provisions of part III, which deals with street trading. There were negotiations on, amendments to and a petition against the Bill on behalf of street traders, who were concerned not just about ice cream trading, which I know was a separate matter, but about street trading generally. The first assurance that I seek is that, as far as anybody concerned with the promotion of the Bill is aware, there is no remaining discontent among street traders.

Sir John Wheeler: I represent a division of the city of Westminster where there are many street traders and I know that on previous occasions there were objections. I have received no objections in respect of this Bill and I am reliably informed by those responsible for the promotion

of the Bill that they have had no objections either. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel reassured on that very important point.

Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
Secondly, I wish to make a few comments about the relationship between local authorities and street traders. I speak from experience in Southwark and from having watched the local authority, which is controlled not by my colleagues—we are the official opposition in Southwark—but by the Labour party. Street traders have had a very unhappy relationship with their local authority for many years.
Street trading is an integral part of the variety of commerce in London, but an even more important element is that it is part of the continuing employment of people in family businesses. It is often a matter of significant pride to people that they inherit a business that was set up by a father or mother, grandparents, an aunt or uncle, or the like.
Clause 26 deal specifically with provisions governing succession. It provides that, although the holder of a current licence may have given the name and address of a relative to whom he desires the licence to be granted when he dies, retires or gives up his pitch through ill health, the borough council cannot grant that licence until a certain period has elapsed. Have the boroughs given any assurance that they will support rather than oppose the carrying on of businesses in street markets by the relatives of those who currently hold the licences? One controversial issue is that there has been some very sharp practice over the years, wrapped up as non-discriminatory practice but often precluding the carrying on of family businesses by the people who have the most obvious claim to do so.
I am perfectly content that we should expand the possibilities for people to get into street trading. Like many other hon. Members representing London constituencies, over the years I have been approached by people who want to have a stall or a pitch in a street market and have found it difficult to do so. However, sufficient opportunities arise in the normal course of events, so it seems to me to be improper and unjustifiable that people who have built up a market stall as a family business should not be assured that they can transfer the business to a member of their family. Members of the family are defined in clause 26(2). They are all sufficiently proximate in terms of affinity to be eligible.
I hope that I can have some assurance before we end this debate that local authorities are committed to and support the principle that, where appropriate family members wish to take over such a business, the authorities should be positively disposed towards them and not make life difficult.
Thirdly, we now have a set of regulations in substantial detail about designating licensed streets, the way in which applications should be made to local authorities for street trading licences, the conditions that shall be applied, and so on. Street trading requires common sense, as does the relationship between the licensing authority and street traders. It is no good taking an antagonistic and parochial attitude to such obvious problems as how the streets are to be cleaned either during or immediately after a market. These are matters of dialogue.
I wonder whether an assurance has been given to street traders by London local authorities that they will always


seek properly to include street traders in the local authority committees, sub-committees and working parties that make the decisions on these matters.
I appreciate that under the new legislation that will come into effect this spring it will be impossible for people who are not elected councillors to be full committee members. I support that. Those who are elected should be ultimately responsible, and it should be impossible to fiddle the numbers by co-opting people. None the less, if local democracy is to work well, it is important for street traders to be involved in the decision-making process. Have assurances been given that street traders will be properly involved? In Southwark, the system has certainly been rigged against them on many occasions, and they have unreasonably been excluded from those parts of the decision-making process in which they have a justifiable case for inclusion—often with surprising ingratitude for what street traders do.
Street traders do not simply set up stalls and sell food, vegetables, clothes and other wares. They often make substantial contributions to the local community. They arrange outings for underprivileged or deprived people and collections of money for people in the community. I have never found street traders to be unwilling to co-operate or to collaborate with people who are reasonable to them. It is a pity that in Southwark things often came to such a sad pass; there was a great deal of acrimony because there was no proper consultation and dialogue. I hope that some assurance will be given during the passage of the Bill that street traders will be involved in decisions about fees, charges, the siting of pitches and which streets are designated.
The fourth matter on which I seek information from the promoters is whether there was any discussion behind the scenes on the view of local authorities—if there is a collective one—about the fees and charges to be imposed. In my constituency, there is a designated street market in Albion street, which is very near the mouth of Rotherhithe tunnel. It provides for a small number of pitches, but because of population change and the Surrey docks development, the market has not been running for some years now and the number of street markets in my constituency has been reduced.
The variety and benefit of shopping in the locality has been diminished by the absence of pitches and stalls there. One factor which has determined that—although it is by no means the only one—is the fees charged by local authorities. I am not arguing that there should be a centrally determined standard fee for 33 London local authorities. That would be against my philosophy, illogical and probably impossible to enforce. I am seeking information on whether any guarantees have been given that there will be no unreasonable increases that will freeze out street trading.
One conflict that is below the surface of all the legislation is the battle between street traders who want to retain street trading, which is very popular with local people and visitors as part of the commercial life of London, and the local authorities, for which street trading often represents a nuisance. They sometimes deal with it by encumbering it with so many regulations and administrative difficulties that people are dissuaded from trying to get through the process, and then by adding charges and increasing them so unreasonably above inflation that street traders are driven away.
Although some people have stalls and pitches in more than one market, more than one borough or all over a large city, most traders make their living from one stall. If they cannot continue in the borough where they are traditionally known, or they are frozen out, that is the end of their business. I hope that assurances can be given about the positive attitude of local authorities in London towards street trading.
The House should take note of the valuable role of street traders. I recall a controversial debate about earlier legislation promoted by the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) on behalf of the Greater London council, which proposed changes to street traders' patterns of occupation and licensing. The hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) and I managed to persuade the House to adopt an amendment that was supported by both sides of the House. It was supported by the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan) who is now the Minister for Sport, although I do not know for how much longer. We had to take on the GLC, which was acting insensitively towards street traders. I hope that those days are over and that the Bill does not presage a further series of battles—although this time they would be fought local authority by local authority in boroughs where street traders hope to hang on to the important role that they play.
My final point relates to procedure. I was present at the end of last Session when the House passed motions which, for the first time, carried over private legislation into this Session. Perhaps the sponsor of the Bill can tell us how often we have proceeded immediately to consider and approve such a motion—if the Chairman of Ways and Means' motion is approved by the House.
At the end of last Session, the motions were introduced on the basis that it was a precedent and that we had never before reached the stage where so many Bills had been blocked. When we returned this Session, we had a resurrection motion, which was also unprecedented. Unless there have been one or two others since that resurrection motion, the motion of the Chairman of Ways and Means is unusual, to say the least. May we have some information on whether it is unique or unprecedented or whether there have been precedents for considering amendments and moving straight into a Third Reading debate without giving hon. Members the opportunity to consider the Bill as amended? It is unusual.
In a debate last night, when the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) was certainly present, we discovered that some statutory instruments that had been debated in Committee only the day before were being considered forthwith without hon. Members having had the opportunity to see the Hansard reports of the debates in Committee. It may be that they were considered in the. wrong order and that we considered some tertiary legislation before we had enacted the treaty that made it possible.
These are important matters, and I hope that we are given some reassurance that we are not acting over-hastily. No great disservice would be done to legislation if we could consider it in Committee one day and on Third Reading another day. Even if some hon. Members wished to speak against the amendments or Third Reading, surely it would be better to proceed stage by stage in the traditional way of Parliament, rather than trying to avoid, ambush or hijack difficulty by concertina-ing two stages together.
I should be concerned if this was the only opportunity for the House to debate a motion that brings together consideration and Third Reading. I ask hon. Members to reflect on whether that is a wise precedent for private or other legislation, and whether there will soon be the reform of the private Bill procedure that we all expect.

Mr. John Bowis: If the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has queries about the procedure, he should have consulted you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as the guardian of the procedure on private business. I assume also that the hon. Gentleman consulted members of his party who control certain London boroughs, and who support the Bill, about the subjects tht he raised. I should like to emphasise that the Bill, which we hope will shortly be on the statute book, is welcomed and promoted by all London boroughs.

Mr. Simon Hughes: May I correct the hon. Gentleman? We are still considering the motion; we have not yet reached Third Reading.

Mr. Bowis: I think that we are on Third Reading. If I am wrong, no doubt you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will correct me.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): The Question before the House is, That Standing Order No. 205 be suspended and that the Bill be now read the Third time.

Mr. Bowis: I am grateful; we are indeed on Third Reading.
I wish to welcome the Bill in principle and highlight clause 42, which will bring welcome relief to people in London because it deals with discarded shopping trolleys—the misguided monsters of London streets.
Shopping trolleys litter our streets, and it is time we gave local authorities power to deal with them. They are a boon to shoppers, but they are left in the most extraordinary places, not least in my front doorway. I welcome the fact that something will be done to remove them.
Shopping trolleys disfigure the environment when they are left lying around. They pose a danger to blind people, who trip and fall over them, and others with partial or full sight can equally suffer injury. They should not be left lying around. They pose a danger when they are tipped into rivers and streams, thereby damaging the creatures that live in them, not least swans. Many swans have been killed as a result of anglers' fishing lines getting hooked round trolleys and wrapping around a swan's neck, causing it to drown.
Today, projectiles are flying around because of the gales and causing damage and danger. We have the opportunity to remove shopping trolleys from our streets, so that, on days such as this, they do not contribute to the damage that the people and property of our capital city are suffering.

Mr. Tom Cox: I agree with the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) about trolleys. He and I represent adjoining constituencies which, like those of other hon. Members, suffer from the problem of discarded shopping trolleys.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: I have never been able to understand why we do not adopt the French system, whereby one pays the equivalent of £1 when taking a trolley, which is returned when one returns the trolley.

Mr. Cox: The hon. Gentleman has taken the point that I was about to make. The hon. Member for Battersea and I have Texas do-it-yourself stores in our constituencies. The Earlsfield store operates that system, and I rarely see its trolleys discarded. That is a simple method of preventing people from discarding trolleys.
I wish to deal with clause 41, the first four lines of which say:
In the case of any market or fair held in pursuance of any statute, royal licence, royal charter or letters patent, or as of right from time immemorial, nothing in this Part of this Act shall affect the sale or exposure or offer for sale of goods in any such market or fair".
I am a member of the all-party Showmen's Guild. Its large membership is made up of members of all political parties and its regular meetings are well attended. Fairs and markets are held throughout the year in the constituencies of hon. Members representing London. Many of them have traditions going back hundreds of years and are part of the history of those areas. Local authorities, irrespective of which political party controls them, by and large welcome fairs, which have large public support. Children and families enjoy the events that fairs and markets offer.
Clause 41 outlines what should be the position, but sadly it often is not. The all-party Showmen's Guild held a meeting in the House in December, at which showmen informed us of a problem that they face in Northallerton. However, the problem could equally apply to any part of London. The local authority in Northallerton claims that fairs and markets, which have been held there for hundreds of years, are causing too much congestion. In the eyes of the local authority, they are becoming a nuisance and it does not want them to take place.
Hon. members may ask, "Surely the royal statute gives showmen a guarantee. For hundreds of years they have been able to hold fairs and markets in that area, so why should they worry?" Unfortunately, it is not as simple as that, because I understand from the latest information that I have been given that the local authority has become bloody-minded. It is not prepared to hold the meetings that the Showmen's Guild of Great Britain has repeatedly requested to discuss the problem. It is saying to showmen, "We are not concerned about the traditions. Your fairs are causing too much congestion in our area. Therefore, we will no longer allow them."
That has caused much worry, not only to people whose livelihoods depend on fairs and markets but to local businesses, which often benefit from them, because they attract people who spend their money in those local businesses. I understand that this will cost the showmen a great deal of money because they intend to contest the actions of that local authority.
Clause 41 clearly outlines a showman's rights, but when those rights have been outlined before, they have not


always been observed. I understand that the hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) is the sponsor of the Bill. Will the hon. Gentleman give me and other London Members a clear assurance that what is said in the Bill is what is meant, and that this group of honourable men and women, who follow a tradition in fairs and markets that have existed for hundreds of years, will not find itself in Northallerton? It could cost the guild an enormous amount to defend what has generally been accepted as a basic right. As a London Member, I feel that I have the right to seek the clear assurance that clause 41 will be adhered to by the London boroughs that have supported the Bill.

Sir John Wheeler: I hope to bring this short but useful Third Reading debate to its conclusion. First, let me seek to respond to the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox), who has expressed an interest in clause 41. He is absolutely right to address the House in such terms: we all know and understand the value and importance of the Showmen's Guild and the contribution that it makes to the quality of life.
The hon. Gentleman asked me to say, on behalf of the promoter, whether clause 41 means what it says. I believe the words therein displayed to be wholly accurate and a proper reflection of what is intended. I believe, too, that the 32 London boroughs will endeavour to operate not only to the letter of the clause but to its spirit as well. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that I have made those remarks in good faith, in the belief that the promoters of the Bill believe that what they propose is proper.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) spoke eloquently in support of the work and life style of street traders, and the House will remember his contributions on previous occasions. I need hardly tell the House that that part of the Bill dealing with street traders seeks to enshrine in law a clear statement of how street trading should be practiced in the 32 London boroughs, and will introduce for the first time scope of the legislation shoe shines and ticket touts, who will also require a licence. The purpose of the exercise is to protect and enhance the activities of the genuine street trader and to keep off the streets of London, to the benefit of the public as well as of street traders, the humbugs and scoundrels to whom we object.

Mr. Tony Banks: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am just passing through the Chamber. I was interested in something that he said about licences for ticket touts. Is it really the case that one can get a licence to practise something which, if not wholly illegal, certainly approaches illegality?

Sir John Wheeler: Our proceedings are greatly enhanced by the passage through the Chamber of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). The Bill would require ticket touts to apply for licences but I have not said whether they would be granted licences. The hon. Gentleman may conclude from that that the Bill may be regarded as a means by which to deal with a difficult and unpleasant social problem.
Let me return to the speech made by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey and to his concern for street traders. He is right to say that clause 26 deals with

the family relationship of traders who succeed one generation after the other. The Bill seeks to define that succession. Let me try to help the hon. Gentleman by explaining that the intention in the Bill is to protect those who have a proper succession but allow the licensing authority to protect the public interest by preventing the charlatan and the rogue from usurping the privilege. The hon. Gentleman will have noted that clause 30 provides for a developed and detailed appeals system so that the aggrieved person can properly press his claim should he wish to do so.
The hon. Gentleman also asked whether there would be consultation between the 32 London boroughs and the street traders. That is a more difficult question for me to attempt to answer, although I believe that the 32 boroughs intend to have a full and proper working relationship with those who seek to trade within their jurisdiction. As the hon. Gentleman knows, some authorities unfortunately do not seek to establish such relationships at present. We can only hope that the passage of the Bill and the examples of the best in London will encourage those authorities that have been at odds with their traders to find a more satisfactory way of relating to them.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman's mention of 32 London boroughs prompted me to check the statement issued on behalf of the promoters. I had assumed that the 32 boroughs and the City were included. Now I see that the City and one borough are not included. Only 31 are mentioned. Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House why the City and one London borough are not to come within the regime?

Sir John Wheeler: I am afraid that I cannot help the House with that question. The House will understand from its knowledge of the history of the corporation of the City of London that its activities are invariably separate and distinct from the rough and tumble of the life of the 32 London boroughs. On my present information, I cannot, alas, tell the hon. Gentleman why one of the London boroughs does not fall within the scope of the Bill. The Bill would nevertheless consolidate and improve a number of measures, and it is to the advantage of the people of London and the boroughs represented that we should approve it.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey also touched on fees and charges. As I understand it, these must be a matter for the constituent local authority, and I have no authority to say what they should seek to do collectively. That must be a matter for them. I invite the House to give this important local measure its Third Reading.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: I thought that I had better say a word or two about the Bill because, when the Leader of the House introduced what was commonly called the resurrection motion some time ago, I pointed out that some of the street traders that I had spoken to during the 12 months since the Bill had started its passage through Parliament had drawn my attention to its inadequacies. I refer in particular to those in the city of Westminster.
There are many Labour local authorities in London. Many street traders in such areas, including those in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham,


North-West (Mr. Banks), believe that the local authority will do its level best to protect the street trader and others who are affected by the new provisions in the Bill. I had a discussion to that effect with some of the street traders in Westminster—Lady Porter's domain. They are worried about the treatment that they will receive.

Sir John Wheeler: No, they are not.

Mr. Skinner: We can carry on doing the pantomime act for as long as the hon. Gentleman wants. I spoke to a considerable number of market traders, including many on Strutton ground, not far from here, off Victoria Street. They are worried about registration and licensing. They are also worried about some of the points to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Under the present procedure, people who have licences keep them on until they decide to pack up the licence, retire or pass away. They are worried that under the new procedure they will have that right taken away. Some of the traders may be 60-odd years old and have been on Strutton ground or in other places in the vicinity for many years. A family may have traded there for generations.
Under the Bill, someone from Westminster council who had lost his interest in giving away cemeteries might decide to take it out on the street traders. The traders are worried about that and have made representations to Westminster council on several occasions but not got far.
We must question how the Bill has managed to reach this point, with Third Reading and amendments. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) referred to the amendments on Third Reading. This is not the first time that amendments have been brought before the House on Third Reading, although it may not have happened on a private Bill.
In the last parliamentary Session, the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) sponsored a private Member's Bill. It waltzed its way quickly through many of its stages and reached Third Reading. It was suddenly realised that it had gone so fast that the promoters had got the title wrong. They did not simply need amendments: they had to change the title. Some of us who were here on that Friday put a stop to that hanky-panky. The same thing is happening with this Bill. It has come along with amendments on Third Reading, despite the fact that they have not been properly and thoroughly discussed.
To add to the confusion, the Bill did not get through in the last parliamentary Session. What is known as a carry-over motion could have been brought in to allow the Bill to be carried over into the next parliamentary Session. The Government have a massive majority, so one would think they would be able to do the job simply. They have a majority of 150 over the Labour party and the rest—the rag, tag and bobtail—of about 100. With all those Members available, one would think that the Government could get it right. They say that they can whip these things, but it is a different story when the heat is on. They did not bring in a carry-over motion, and then came up with another motion after the new parliamentary Session had begun.
The Government's motion was to the effect, "Let's imagine that we don't have a new Session. We shall carry the Bills over retrospectively." If a Labour Government or Labour manifesto proposed to introduce retrospective

legislation to give an amnesty to all the people who will not pay the poll tax, the Tories would play merry hell. An amnesty would not be a bad idea. I am working on it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Skinner: I say this only in passing. I am simply drawing a parallel. The Tories' people in the media would want to hang, draw and quarter those who had the gall to propose retrospective legislation. However, that is what the Government have done. The Bill was carried over retrospectively. The Chairman of Ways and Means is knowledgeable about such affairs, and he knows what I am saying.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Does my hon. Friend recall that, on the Housing (Special Provisions) Bill, which became an Act in 1975, restrospective provision was made to allow civil rights to be restored to several local authority councillors, including 11 Clay Cross councillors, in the same way as they were restored to Scottish councillors and others? On that occasion, many Conservative Members said that retrospective legislation was the top of a slippery slope to Fascism. Two different standards are operating here.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House that we are debating the question, That the Bill be now read the Third time. The remarks to which we have been listening are wide of that question. I hope that we shall return to the question before the House.

Mr. Skinner: Let me explain simply, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Bill before us is unusual. It has been blocked, and the promoters have now come along with amendments. They did not bring them in the normal fashion but on Third Reading. As the Leader of the House had too many Bills before the House and he ran out of parliamentary time, he said that the London Local Authorities Bill would come before the House and would be carried over retrospectively. As Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you know what I am talking about. We are talking not about an abstract matter but specifically about the Bill.
When the Leader of the House caught up with the backlog of Bills, he decided not to tell the promoters of this Bill, "Sorry, you will have to start from scratch and bring it in afresh." That is what should have happened. The Leader of the House realised that he might be able to shuffle the Bill through and carry over a whole series of Bills, including this one. It was retrospective legislation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) was right to draw a parallel with the way in which the Tories, their friends and Lord Hailsham hammered my brothers and their colleagues on Clay Cross council because they had the guts to keep down council house rents in the 1970s. The councillors stopped the Bill's progress. It never reappeared. They did a good service, although they suffered for it.

Mr. Tony Banks: I remember the incident that my hon. Friend describes. I was a member of a council at the time. We refused to put up the rents and were surcharged, although not at the same penal level—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot have an inquest on legislation that was before the House years ago. We


should confine our remarks to the Third Reading of the Bill before the House. I hope that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) will do so.

Mr. Skinner: We are here to discuss the Third Reading of an unusual Bill. On a normal Third Reading, it would be right and proper to discuss the content of the Bill. However, we are talking about an unusual Third Reading. Amendments have been brought in at Third Reading which have not been discussed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not correct. There are no amendments before the House. The amendments were put before the House properly.

Mr. Cryer: Ah.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cryer: I was just saying, "Ah."

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The amendments have been put before the House. They have been discussed by the House and decided by the House. That is now water under the bridge and the debate should be confined to the motion, That the Bill be now read the third time.

Mr. Cryer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: There is no point of order. The Chair has given a ruling.

Mr. Cryer: I wish to raise a point of order. Is it now forbidden?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise a point of order, he may do so, but he must not seek to debate or challenge my ruling.

Mr. Cryer: I am just asking, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I was not in the Chamber at the time, whether all the amendments have been incorporated in the Bill and are now part of the Third Reading debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has heard me say that the amendments were properly considered at the appropriate stage and have now been decided upon by the House. The motion before the House is, That the Bill be now read the third time, and that is what the debate should be confined to.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The motion is, in fact, slightly different. The motion on the Order Paper, which you confirmed earlier, is
That Standing Order 205 … be suspended and that the Bill be now read the third time.
That is unusual, because we have a Standing Order that requires notice of Third Reading, but this motion will allow us to do without that. However, we have not yet voted on that proposal, just as we have not yet voted on Third Reading.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman is seeking to spell out the full motion, he is quite right, but I remind him that the House considered a similar motion last week, which it discussed and approved, so there is nothing unique about what we are doing this evening.

Mr. Skinner: So, we move on a stage and to the question of the "resurrection motion", if I may use that term, which the Leader of the House introduced after the

new parliamentary Session had begun. That too was unusual, that too applied to this Bill and that too was retrospective legislation, which is why I am referring to it. I am speaking on behalf of some of the street traders to whom I referred earlier, and to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) referred. It was because my hon. Friend also showed proper concern that the sponsor of the Bill had to answer some of my hon. Friend's queries.
I want to put on the record the fact that this is not just an attempt by me to talk on generalities. The people at Strutton ground and throughout other parts of the area of Westminster council are concerned about the way in which they might be treated when the Bill has received its Third Reading. They believe that, unlike many others, they will be subject to a series of changes—and they have already experienced a few.

Mr. Tony Banks: My hon. Friend has said that the Bill has been resurrected. It certainly has, but it is unlikely ever to become an object of worship. The point that I had been about to put to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) before you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, savaged me in a nice and friendly fashion, would not have discussed the difficulties within my hon. Friend's family back in 1974—

Mr. Skinner: There were no difficulties.

Mr. Banks: Well, the certain problems that were—

Mr. Skinner: There were no problems. It was heroism.

Mr. Banks: Indeed, the heroism of the Skinner family is well known in this House and throughout Derbyshire. What I had been going to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover was that, if we get to the point when we can discuss the various recommendations in the report of the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure, we will not get ourselves into the sort of difficulties that we are in tonight. I know that my hon. Friend is concerned about that because he asked the Leader of the House questions about it recently.

Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend has made a fair point. What he is really saying is that an additional reason why we are speaking on this matter, and why my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) has spoken about it, is that we are concerned about the way in which the Government are using the private Bill procedure. The Bill is now part of the backlog and, as the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey has already pointed out, it is now being hurried through. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting spoke tonight about a matter that I know he would have liked to speak about on a previous occasion, but did not get the chance. He is concerned about the showmen and the street traders.
This has been a mumbo-jumbo affair. The Bill is being shovelled through the House in the hope that people will not take too much notice of it.
I am also worried because, as a result of this debate, I have discovered that the City of London is not involved in these provisions. Indeed, this is not the first time that we have found out that the people—the yuppies—in the City of London are not included in legislation relating to the London authorities. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West has had some previous experience of this.

Mr. Tony Banks: Yes, I certainly have, and I certainly go along with what my hon. Friend has just said about the City of London. However, Camden is also missing from the list of participating councils. Of course, Camden does not have the same political outlook—it is not a totally true-blue Tory council—as the City of London. Although the City of London claims to be impartial and non-political, we know that it has been ring-fenced for the Tory party. The hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) has just returned to his place, so I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover can draw him out somewhat more on the question of why Camden is not included in the list.

Mr. Skinner: I noticed that the hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) had gone to speak to some of the people who might have an interest in this matter. Perhaps he has found out why Camden is not included, and perhaps he will tell us. Does the hon. Gentleman have any information to offer us? If he is proposing the Bill, he should be able to tell us why.
We all know why the City of London has been left out. It is because the street traders in the City of London are a different kind of street trader. When we talk about traders in the City of London, we are talking about those in the stock exchange and all the rest of it. They would not like to be described as "street traders", but that is what they are. Many's the time that I have heard on the wireless, "Dealing closed on the stock exchange at 3 o'clock"—that is not a bad time to finish, is it?—"but they are still trading on the pavement." Apparently, that is a metaphorical way of describing it, but it is true. Traders used to leave the stock exchange and deal in shares outside. That was before big bang, which has been a right old carve-up, because the Japs have taken it over now and there have been job losses.
So, there are street traders in the stock exchange and in the stock exchange and in the insurance market at Lloyd's. We should remember that 50 Tory Members are members of Lloyd's—

Mr. Tony Banks: They are names.

Mr. Skinner: Yes, that is right—they are names, but I think that they are members as well. There have been one or two swindles there, including the almighty swindle recently involving £40-odd million and the PCW syndicate but of course, nobody has had their collar felt. Those involved are street traders, yet they are not covered by the Bill's provisions. I find it odd that those people who represent the Tory party and who have picked up something like £26 billion in tax cuts along with their friends in the course of the past 10 years are not having a fence put round them as well. Why are the street traders of the City of London not being treated exactly the same—

Sir John Wheeler: rose—

Mr. Skinner: Oh, I have drawn him out—I have drawn out the prison officers' whatever it is—

Sir John Wheeler: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene in his extremely interesting discourse about the nature of trading in the corporation of the City of London. I am sure that he recalls that the House has approved other measures dealing with those people in the City of London to whom he has just referred. It might help him to know that the Labour-controlled London borough of Camden was not able to participate in

the Bill because, as I understand it, it did not want to subscribe to the costs of promoting the Bill. That is all I can offer the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Skinner: Well, that is an answer as far as Camden is concerned, and I suppose that it has satisfied my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West, but it does not alter the facts about those in the City of London. I want to be able to tell the street traders down at the Cut and the others who are not a hop, step or a jump from this building why the street traders of the City of London and Lloyd's will not be subjected to the licensing arrangements, but I do not suppose that I shall get an answer. Just imagine somebody telling those street traders, "Sorry, your licence is finished." Yet that is what might happen to some of the street traders in the city of Westminster and some of the other Tory-controlled authorities. I want to know why those people are being treated differently.

Mr. Simon Hughes: This is an important point, because there will be a difference in treatment for the street traders in two London authorities. Perhaps Camden's reason is that it would not pay, but the result is that street trading in Camden and in the City will be different. My street traders will want to know whether their colleagues in other boroughs and in the City will be better or worse off. I hope that that question will be answered before the end of the debate, because as the hon. Gentleman has rightly pointed out, we will not have a Londonwide common standard. There will be two or three different standards—one for 31 boroughs, plus different ones, and it is important that we know whether they are better or worse.

Mr. Skinner: That is a fair point. This is what the debate has revealed, although these points should have been discussed earlier, when we might have remedied some of the anomalies. We are now beginning to find out that the City of London and its people are not to be included. We now find that Camden is not included, and perhaps we may find some other anomalies. That only arises out of a debate that was started by, among others, my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley and my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting. They had what I was going to call the audacity—they felt it necessary—to question some of the contents of this Bill.

Mr. Redmond: At the start of this debate, I asked for clarification about the amendments. I said that, if someone had jumped up and explained the amendments, one could either accept them or reject them. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) got up and, among other things, the question of street traders emerged, whether they would be affected and so on. We were given an assurance that there were no objections whatever. Yet we find that there are objections. We find that not all the London boroughs are involved. I am not a Londoner. Perhaps my hon. Friend ought to continue to draw information out. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing out the points that he has, and perhaps if he continues we can elicit more information.

Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley has a valid point. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will appreciate this as well because, like the hon. Member, you represent a market town. It is not called a market town for nothing; Doncaster has some of the best and biggest markets in the whole of Britain—as many as three or four, I gather. I have been to several. So my hon. Friend the


Member for Don Valley is knowledgeable about such things. I bet he will want a guarantee for the street traders here equivalent to those given to the traders who come under the aegis of the Labour-controlled Doncaster authority of which he was a member.
That is what we are talking about here: if it is right for those people in the City of London—the moneylenders—to be able to escape from any controls and any licensing, why should these people who have to live under the threat of Lady Porter and her Tory friends be subject to the possibility of losing their licences next week for little or no reason, when one of the local officers comes along and tells them that their licences are up? That is what they worry about. They have asked me to put these questions.

Mr. Eric Illsley: My hon. Friend may recall that, until a few years ago, my constituency had the largest open-air market in the country. He may also recall that only a few months ago in this House we discussed the Redbridge London Borough Council Bill, which sought to implement a market in contravention of a royal charter. My hon. Friend may also recall that Barnsley has a market founded by royal charter—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. These are not matters to be discussed on the Third Reading of the London Local Authorities Bill.

Mr. Illsley: I appreciate that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I wanted to explain this point about street traders. The Bill will give extra powers to London local authorities and will again circumvent powers which have been granted to certain authorities under royal charter to hold markets and allow street trading. Perhaps my hon. Friend for Bolsover would care to consider that.

Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) is absolutely right. We were present on that occasion, when it was apparent that hon. Members on both sides of the House were in competition with one another about the very thing that he points out. It would be absolutely true, as my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central has said, that if these powers go through without some of us studying them very carefully, it could well mean, if the Third Reading is agreed, that some of those street traders in authorities other than Westminster will suffer as a result.
It is important that we raise these matters. I know that it is late in the day, but that is not our fault. The whole procedure was, as it were, concertina-ed. Normally, a Bill that goes through the House, whether it is a private or a public Bill or a Private Members' Bill, will take a fairly lengthy time and be discussed, but this Bill has been scuttled through in clandestine fashion, mainly because the Government got all their private Bills piled up and did not know what to do with them. The result is that these promoters, who make a tidy sum out of them, are not too unhappy.
They should have gone back to the street traders to whom I have spoken in the Westminster council area and asked if they could discuss these matters. Some of the traders have been to the council and asked if they could discuss them. I bet the hon. Member for Westminster, North did not know that. He did not know at the beginning of the debate, because he almost suggested that I was not telling the truth; but I have discussed it with these people, and they are very concerned about it.

Mr. Frank Haynes: My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover is on the right lines. Not many days ago, we had a meeting in the House with the Market Traders Association. Because of what my hon. Friend is saying and the kind of information that he is dragging out, I wonder if there was any consultation at all with the Market Traders Association. It is a national organisation which takes in this area.

Mr. Skinner: Apart from the content of what my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) has said, the most delightful thing about his intervention is that he was standing there with his hand on the Dispatch Box. It would be wrong if that were not recorded in Hansard—the fact that he really did look the part. Although he is not standing at the next election, in the next two years before we take control, my hon. Friend may grace that Dispatch Box on some other ocasion—perhaps not when a Bill is going through its very late stages but right from the very beginning.

Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend has raised the question of market traders and street traders and the question of Lloyd's. He may recall that, in 1981, a private Bill was brought here by Lloyd's to give it, among other things, additional powers and complete immunity for the council of Lloyd's from any action in law for whatever disciplinary action it carried out, on the basis that Lloyd's could manage its own affairs. In view of scandal after scandal, it is clear that Lloyd's cannot manage its own affairs. That is a very good reason why Lloyd's should have been incorporated into the section on street trading in the Bill, even though its members are called by a posh name in order to avoid offending Lloyd's.

Mr. Tony Banks: Spivs.

Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head again; he is talking about the spivs in Lloyds, who make millions and regulate themselves. What would be wrong even at this late stage in telling the street traders that they can operate on a co-operative basis and regulate themselves? We could tell them that they could have an umbrella organisation to make sure that nothing could be regarded as affecting the environment, but that, when it came to control, licensing and regulation of the markets, they could form local co-operatives. If it is good enough for Lloyd's and the moneychangers, why is it not good enough for them? That is the point.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I have had the opportunity while the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has been speaking to make inquiries about the absence of the City of London from the authorities in the Bill. I understand that the consequence, if the Bill gets a Third Reading tonight, is that the position of market traders, strictly defined, in the City will be relatively worse than in the other authorities which are participants in the Bill, so the logic of the argument holds good.
Sadly, Camden's market traders will also be in a poorer position. When will the City of London make sure that its market traders get the same standards as the Bill would give anyone else in London, and why has it not been willing to give them those same standards at the same time?

Mr. Skinner: I think I said earlier in respect of the absence of the City of London that it has friends on the


Tory side and in government. If a body has the support of 50 hon. Members who are Lloyd's names—there are 50 in the Register of Members' Interests; I do not know whether there are any who are not in it—it has real power. It has the power then to say, "Can we be assured that the City of London is not included in the London Local Authorities Bill? We don't want it in. We can look after ourselves."
We hear the arguments about ballots for trade unionists, but not for the Tory party. If the Tory party has a ballot, it does not have a polling booth. The Tory party has double standards. Tory Members have one rule for ordinary, run-of-the-mill street traders who, by and large, are working class, but when it comes to the street traders and the money lenders in the City of London, they have a different set of values.

Mr. Tony Banks: My hon. Friend is a great defender of parliamentary democracy. Indeed, parliamentary democracy owes him a great debt this evening for having drawn some of these important matters to our attention. He has raised something that I had not thought about until now. If the City of London is excluded, and if the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) is correct in saying that the traders in the City of London are relatively worse off in comparison with traders in other boroughs, how does my hon. Friend think that the Bill will affect traders in other parts of London? He will be aware that the City of London is a market authority. It controls not just traders in the one square mile of the City of London, but has responsibility, as a market authority, for markets all over London. Will those markets be affected by the Bill?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must draw to the attention of hon. Members the fact that it is the practice on Third Reading to discuss what is in the Bill and not what might have been in the Bill. The appropriate stage to consider omissions from the Bill is earlier than Third Reading.

Mr. Skinner: That is not the point I am arguing, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My point is not that the City of London is not in the Bill. I would be out of order if I were to argue that it ought to be in the Bill. I have not made that point. What I say is that the 31 authorities in the Bill may be affected by the absence of the City of London. The point has to be made over and over again. I would be out of order if I were to say that I wanted the City of London in the Bill. I am not likely to say that, but because it is not in, it means that street traders in this area and elsewhere will be affected in many ways.

Mr. Banks: And the markets outside.

Mr. Skinner: Yes, the markets outside the City of London would also be affected.
Some people may ask how we know that the city of Westminster and Lady Porter would deal with the street traders in a way that was disadvantageous to them. I will tell hon. Members why I take that view. It is not because it is a Tory authority, which is bad enough, because of the track record of Lady Porter's administration on cemeteries and other matters; it is because the city of Westminster has already put forward another proposal on Strutton ground. Half the street has already been dug up. I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West is listening, because he is interested in the arts.
Westminster city council proposed to change that quaint little street, which has been there for centuries, into a piazza—not a pizza. The council wanted yuppie stones, coloured stones. The fruit merchants and all the others who have had stalls there for years organised a giant petition to stop the proposal. One thing is certain; there would have been different street traders there after the development. That was the plan. The street traders were told that they would be moved three quarters of a mile away while the work was going on. They would have lost all their trade, and then the yuppie traders would have moved in.
I hope the hon. Member for Westminster, North is listening, because this is important. That was the plan last year. It was thwarted, perhaps only temporarily, because of the petition. I want assurances, because Westminster city council might bring forward a similar proposal. It has already dug up half the street, and some of the traders have been shunted into side streets.

Mr. Allan Rogers: My hon. Friend has mentioned proposals for yuppie stalls somewhere in London, very close to here, I understand. As he well knows, in most developments these days there must be a marina and a parking place for yachts. Were there any such proposals in the plan that he is talking about?

Mr. Skinner: No. However, the Bill is so comprehensive, covering 31 authorities, that it covers much of the Thames and the Embankment. Some Tory Members were tittering when my hon. Friend made that point, but let me make it clear that there is scope in the Bill to do that.
If Westminster's plan is carried out, markets that have existed for generations may be changed in character. My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) knows what it is like to live in a stable community; he does not knock it. Other hon. Members come from communities where there is not the same mobility. Let us remember that, under this comprehensive Bill, there could be massive changes. Many people who have had stalls for years might find themselves literally on the coloured stones.

Mr. Bowis: I accept that the hon. Gentleman is expressing concerns which should be expressed in the House, but can he explain why the leaderships of the Labour party in Newham, in Barking, in Lambeth, in Southwark and all the other Labour councils who are promoting the Bill have got it wrong?

Mr. Skinner: No, they have not got it wrong. I said at the outset that the Bill deals with many local authorities controlled by the Labour party. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West told me many months ago that the local authorities felt that they would be able to use their democratic strength to ensure democracy; I am sure the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey would take the same view.
The Labour authorities are worried about the Tory authorities, where the same democratic control might not exist. It is no use someone saying that I have plucked that out of thin air. Hon. Members need only look at the track record of Westminster city council over the past three or four years. There is plenty of evidence of democratic rights being trampled on—even the rights of people who have buried their dead. When peple like that are running local


authorities, is it any wonder that street traders think that they cannot have the same protection as street traders in Newham? That is why there is a difference.

Mr. Bowis: I think the hon. Gentleman misses the point—that Labour authorities in London, together with non-Conservative authorities, happen to make up the majority of the authorities sponsoring the Bill. They are sponsoring it on behalf of all London boroughs, including the Conservative boroughs. Yet they do not have the concerns that the hon. Gentleman seems to have.

Mr. Skinner: That is right. They feel that they are making an advance and that they will have democratic control. The Labour groups in Hackney and elsewhere may think that there is only a tiny majority in Westminster and that they will be able to control it. That is not had thinking; it is fairly progressive. It is on the cards, but as Members of Parliament, we have to consider the long term as well.
That is why I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) come into the Chamber, because there are street markets in Leicester as well. If the proposal was for Leicester, he and his two Labour colleagues in Leicester would not take long to stand up for the rights of street traders there. That is what is significant about this debate: those participating—apart from the hon. Member for Westminster, North—all represent Labour authorities and are Labour Members. They are interested in democratic control and believe in the idea of co-operative movements.

Mr. George J. Buckley: My hon. Friend is making a valid point. Earlier, he talked about the self-regulation of Lloyd's and the legislation for that. Why is it right for Lloyd's in the City of London to have self-regulation in these matters, but not the traders association? Why are we not giving some responsibility and authority in these matters to the traders association—as has been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes)—so that the street traders would be self-regulating and have some influence on their own destiny?

Mr. Skinner: There is a good reason. The people behind the Bill include, as I said earlier, Labour-controlled authorities, which feel relatively happy about the matter, and the minority in the Tory-held areas that we are speaking up for today. We are trying to say to the hon. Member for Westminster, North, who is acting on behalf of the promoters, that we want some guarantees. A few Labour Members expressed fears about the consequences in Westminster, which is why I raised these important matters.

Mr. Illsley: I appreciate the point which my hon. Friend makes about Westminster city council. Before he leaves that point, will he bear in mind the tourist trade within London and surrounding areas? Is it not a fact that Westminster has the vast majority of tourist attractions in London, so its street traders benefit from tourism? If regulations were imposed in Westminster that were not imposed in other Labour-controlled authorities, it could be to the detriment of the tourist industry in and around the capital.

Mr. Skinner: That is an important point; it highlights the fact that sometimes in this place hon. Members stand

up and make a point or two about what seems to be an innocuous measure and then, suddenly, the truth is revealed. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) has spotted another factor: tourism in Westminster and other areas.

Mr. Tony Banks: I do not wish to disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley). However, although many tourists are attracted to Westminster, there are many other delights for them in other parts of London. A walk along the northern sewer outfall in Newham is an interesting treat—wonderful rural life can be experienced.

Mr. Skinner: I am not going to talk about the northern outfall sewer—that may be where my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West got his inspiration the other day when he was on about Ratty, Toad and the rest.
I want to reflect on what my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central said about tourism. He made a decent point, but we must remember that, notwithstanding the efforts of the streets traders and their attractive qualities to tourists, tourism receipts in Britain under this Prime Minister have fallen dramatically. Invisible exports—overall tourism in Britain—are down to about £100 million a month, from about £700 million. That is another matter with which we shall have to deal another day.
I did not intend to speak for long, because my hon. Friends have important measures on which they wish to speak later tonight. I have made all the points which need to be made. Will the hon. Member for Westminster, North answer the questions that I have raised to give safeguards to those traders operating in the area of Westminster city council? Will they be given those guarantees that I have demanded? Why has the City of London been removed from the measure? We need those answers. I know that the hon. Gentleman may need the leave of the House to speak again, but we shall probably allow him to do that.

Mr. Cryer: I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would ask the hon. Member for Westminster, North why we should be dealing with a Bill which has extensive powers for the variation of night café licences. As my hon. Friend knows, the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 1982 granted every local authority powers to deal with such establishments. What is different about London late-night café that they need this additonal legislation? I am extremely intrigued to know.

Mr. Skinner: I am not aware of the difference, and I thought my hon. Friend might elaborate on that point; perhaps the hon. Member for Westminster, North, will be able to tell us.
The main concern of those traders I have met is that they have licences—some of which are 60 and 70 years old. They have had the tradition of those licences continuing until the traders die or decide to pack up their market stall. They want that to be guaranteed. They say that under the Bill they do not have that guarantee. They also say—this is important—that with regard to registration, they do not want the strong-arm Lady Porter officers coming to places such as Strutton Ground and elsewhere and saying that because there has been a minor infringement—only alleged—the traders will be removed from the market scene.
Those are real fears, and that is why I am sad that this legislation has not been amended to take account of them, to ensure that those street traders, many of whom have


been there for generations, have not had the assurances that they demanded from the Tory-controlled Westminster city council. We need those assurances today.

9 pm

Mr. Redmond: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak at this stage of the Bill because aspects of the measure continue to need clarification. Despite earlier requests by my hon. Friends for assurances about its effect on, for example, street traders, we continue to have fears about such matters. My experience with Bills has led me to be sceptical lest provisions slip through that we would otherwise oppose.
The activities of street traders provide an attraction for tourists. Market stalls are often colourful and have a pleasant atmosphere. We should try to retain their character. Doncaster has wonderful indoor and outdoor markets, with stalls of great charm. Let us be sure that some of London's streets are not denuded of the stalls that provide colour and enjoyment for tourists. In many areas, market day is a time of enjoyment for many.
I was surprised to hear that no objection to the Bill had been voiced by street traders. I would have thought, from the remarks of my hon. Friends, that a question mark must hang over that statement. It would have been appropriate for a special Committee to examine the Bill in detail in relation to such issues.
It would be a pity if the Bill had an adverse effect on street traders. After all, the concrete block buildings that are going up in London, especially in the City, have no charm or character. They appear soulless to me, and although I am not a Londoner, I want the capital city to retain the charm and the warmth that Londoners can generate.
Let us maintain the fine traditions of street traders. I appreciate that there is the odd cowboy among them, but we should question any measure that would make sweeping changes. It may be said that the Bill would alter nothing. If so, why have the legislation at all? If authorities have permission to alter and tidy up, they may do that. I appreciate that nothing can stand still and that change is unstoppable, but let us ensure that, when change takes place, it is for the benefit of the community at large.
My remarks apply equally to fairs and fairground sites. Regrettably, their numbers have dwindled over the years. What impact might the Bill have on the activities of showground people? They, too, provide colour and charm in our lives, and although I do not support the Prime Minister's Victorian values, I wish to retain some of the family charm that existed in Victorian times. Perhaps we need legislation to ensure that we retain the family charm of those days; I am not sure. One tries to learn a little each day, and if one can do that, the day has not been wasted. Today I have learnt something, if only about the necessity to suspend some of our Standing Orders to enable a Bill to move briskly to its Third Reading.
I agree with those who say that supermarket trolleys can be a hazard. There must be a method, without the need for legislation, to enable local authorities to penalise firms that allow their trolleys to be scattered near and far. A trolley parked on, say, the footpath is a hazard not only for the blind and partially blind but for the elderly, who may not notice it if it is raining and they are walking with

their heads down. Althought that problem needs tackling, do we need the sledgehammer of legislation to crack such a little nut?
The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) is not alone in his complaint—I once had five Asda trolleys in my driveway, so anything that stops that sort of dumping would be welcome. I intend to ask the local legal and administration department whether we can institute proceedings because the trolleys contribute to the litter problem. An abandoned trolley could be classed as litter. We can assume that whoever takes the trolley will dump it. Some onus should be put on the supermarket to ensure that that does not take place. Instead of erecting signs saying, "No trolleys beyond this point," the supermarket should employ someone to tell people not to take trolleys past that point. There are many unemployed people in my constituency and in London, so that would help to reduce unemployment.
Some legislation brings benefits, but we do not need this type of Bill, which I was led to believe was welcomed by all London boroughs. The hon. Member for Battersea said that all London boroughs welcomed it, but it would appear that the City of London and Camden are not party to the Bill. I understand that Camden refused to participate because of the cost of promoting it. I do not know what costs are involved. I know that they are high, but they are not astronomical. There may be a reason other than expense. It appears that there is a practice of making changes to suit the occasion. Certain tactics for the passing of private Bills seem to alter slightly as some obscure rule or regulation is dug out and dusted off so that Bills can make progress. We need to be extremely careful.
Camden may not have participated in the promotion of the Bill because it disliked certain aspects of it. The fact that all 31 boroughs have a Labour majority is not a valid reason. As with other organisations, there is a splintering-off if certain things do not happen. Money may or may not have been the reason why Camden refused to participate—we cannot say. Camden has made no objections, but nor does it support the Bill—if it did, it would have put its name to it.

Sir John Wheeler: It is my belief that the London borough of Camden might seek to apply the measures contained in the Bill in its own jurisdiction through another measure on another occasion. If that proves to be the case, all 32 London boroughs will he in agreement.

Mr. Redmond: It was said earlier that one reason why Camden refused to take part was the cost. I know that the people who draft the Bills and shove them through this place get a bob or two, but as 31 boroughs are involved, I assume that the total cost will be split 31 ways. That would bring the cost down. I hardly think that Camden, which could have had a share of this marvellous cake that has been described, would have turned its nose up at a way of achieving a nice Bill at a very cheap rate. I do not accept that Camden said, "Get lost," so that it might have the opportunity of promoting the self-same Bill again, with all the costs that that would involve. There must be another reasons, and one wonders what it is.

Mr. Bowis: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. Certainly Camden was involved in the early discussions on the Bill. It agreed with the principles of what was being done but decided that it did not want to contribute to the cost. Every London borough has an absolute right to


promote a Bill or to combine with others in doing so. That is provided for in legislation. As hon. Members know, there are two or three London Bills going through the House at the moment. The fact that one of them includes Camden shows that that borough has seen the wisdom of the hon. Gentleman's point about costs being reduced if everyone pulls together.

Mr. Redmond: I accept that Camden was given the opportunity and may have drawn back, but it is still not clear why it took that decision. Given the astronomical costs involved in going it alone, it cannot be the money factor; there must be some other reason.
One or two other things have come out during the debate on this Bill, so it is useful. There has been reference to street traders and fairs. One could talk also about markets. Why did not Redbridge lump together its private Bill with this one? Many other strange things have taken place. Combining with those promoting this Bill would have made the process extremely cheap for the Redbridge ratepayers.
Hon. Members have said that people outside London are taking an interest in the Bill. As Members of Parliament we live in London while Parliament is sitting, so we have some interest in this matter. Obviously we are anxious that there is no sharp practice in the passage of Bills, and that they should be scrutinised fully so that we may, as near as damn it, say, "That is okay and can go on its way." But a Bill should depend for its success on its merits, not on the payroll vote that the Government commands—and uses—in respect of these private Bills.

The Minister for Aviation and Shipping (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): Shame.

Mr. Redmond: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for intervening from a sedentary position.
If one examined the Bill a little more closely, one would probably find matters about which its promoters, should be informing us. During the passage of the Bill, no one seems to have been anxious to jump up to defend its merits. Only after I had asked for an explanation of some of the amendments did that happen. If the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin) had been in the House earlier, he could have jumped to his feet and explained all the amendments in detail. He could have told us why the amendments were necessary and how they would affect the Bill. I do not think that there was sufficient discussion of the amendments, but they have been made, and that will have a bearing on whether the Bill receives its Third Reading. If we had had an early explanation, we might have been home tucked up in bed by now.

Mr. Graham Allen: My hon. Friend referred to the role of Members of Parliament from outside London in scrutinising legislation that applies basically to London authorities. I want to reinforce my hon. Friend's point. The Bill refers to the licensing of street traders and markets, and Redbridge is one of the authorities that is a party to the Bill. Last year, my hon. Friend and I took part in a debate on legislation through which the Redbridge authority sought powers to establish markets in its area. The secretary of the National Market Traders Federation has had considerable correspondence with me about London markets and markets outside London. My hon. Friend should emphasise the

involvement of Members of Parliament from outside the capital. We receive much correspondence and are lobbied by many people who may be affected if a Bill such as this is extended to other authorities.

Mr. Redmond: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Barnsley and other markets will be affected by this Bill and by the Redbridge London Borough Council Bill. Doncaster has a royal charter and I have had representations from my street traders and market traders—as you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will have had—as a result of the Redbridge London Borough Council Bill.
The Bill could affect such markets. I am no lawyer, but the Bill may contain a small clause that opens the pearly gates and allows markets to spring up all over the country in inappropriate places. We must be careful. Doncaster market is not in my constituency, but in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Mr. Walker). However, I have a market in the fine town of Mexborough and I want to ensure that the traders there are protected and that nothing in the Bill would bring about the demise of that market.
We have found to our cost that legislation, once enacted, can create many problems and become a lawyer's paradise. I am not a lawyer and I do not have the background to enable me to vet Bills. We need qualified people to explain the impact of the amendments that we have accepted tonight. In the past, several Ministers have had to come back to the House to rectify errors in legislation that the Government have pushed through. If they, with all their lawyers and civil servants, can make mistakes, it is important that laymen such as me should have the opportunity to examine the Bills and ask questions about them. The importance of that is underlined by my experience of private Bills over the past two years. The Bill should not be allowed to pass unchallenged. We should at least register our concern about its effects.

Mr. Rogers: My hon. Friend referred to the need to ensure that land is made available for fairs. Will he elaborate on the implications of the Bill for fairs?

Mr. Redmond: My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) spoke with great feeling about the worries of fairground people. London's green patches are diminishing. The Evening Standard carries articles about angry ratepayers and tenants objecting to motorways being built near their properties, reducing still further the green belt. The number of places where fairs can be held is decreasing. If a block of flats is built on a parcel of land that has been used for centuries for fairs, they go for ever. It would be impracticable for a fair to be held on the roof garden of a block of flats, especially in windy weather such as we have experienced today.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 104, Noes 25.

Division No. 51]
[9.22 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Amess, David
Buck, Sir Antony


Atkinson, David
Burt, Alistair


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Butler, Chris


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Body, Sir Richard
Chapman, Sydney


Boswell, Tim
Conway, Derek


Brazier, Julian
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Cope, Rt Hon John






Couchman, James
Mans, Keith


Curry, David
Marlow, Tony


Day, Stephen
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Dorrell, Stephen
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Dunn, Bob
Mitchell, Sir David


Fearn, Ronald
Monro, Sir Hector


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Moss, Malcolm


Forman, Nigel
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Neale, Gerrard


Fox, Sir Marcus
Neubert, Michael


Franks, Cecil
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Freeman, Roger
Nicholls, Patrick


Gale, Roger
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Norris, Steve


Gill, Christopher
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Goodlad, Alastair
Paice, James


Gregory, Conal
Patnick, Irvine


Hague, William
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Riddick, Graham


Harris, David
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hawkins, Christopher
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Hayward, Robert
Shersby, Michael


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Hind, Kenneth
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Stern, Michael


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Stevens, Lewis


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Irvine, Michael
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Jack, Michael
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Janman, Tim
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Jessel, Toby
Thorne, Neil


Kilfedder, James
Trotter, Neville


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Kirkwood, Archy
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Knapman, Roger
Wells, Bowen


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Wheeler, Sir John


Lawrence, Ivan
Widdecombe, Ann


Lightbown, David
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Lilley, Peter
Winterton, Nicholas


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Wood, Timothy


Lord, Michael



Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Tellers for the Ayes:


Maclean, David
Mr. John Bowis and


McLoughlin, Patrick
Mr. Andrew Rowe.




NOES


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Lewis, Terry


Bermingham, Gerald
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Cox, Tom
Nellist, Dave


Cryer, Bob
Pike, Peter L.


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Rowlands, Ted


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Skinner, Dennis


Gordon, Mildred
Vaz, Keith


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Wareing, Robert N.


Haynes, Frank
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Hood, Jimmy



Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Tellers for the Noes:


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Mr. Eric Illsley and


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Mr. Martin Redmond.


Lambie, David

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill accordingly raed the Third time and passed, with amendments

MEDWAY TUNNEL BILL [LORDS] (By Order)

Read a Second Time and committed.

Orders of the Day — Shipping (Dangerous Goods)

The Minister for Aviation and Shipping (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 7074/89 relating to requirements for vessels carrying packaged dangerous goods when using Community ports; considers that Community legislation does not represent the most appropriate means of securing the development of effective provisions to enhance environmental safety in this area; and endorses the Government's view that any new measures should be adopted and implemented on a wider international basis through the International Maritime Organisation.
The Commission's proposal is to equip the Community with legislation on the transport of packaged dangerous goods by sea. It is seen as a means of plugging a loophole left by an earlier Council directive, No. 116/79, on the minimum requirements for tankers entering or leaving Community ports carrying oil, liquefied gas or chemicals in bulk. That directive does not cover a large and growing proportion of shipments of dangerous goods—those in packages, containers, tanker wagons, tanker lorries or mobile tankers.
As its title implies, the purpose of the proposed directive is to require vessels entering or leaving Community ports carrying packages of dangerous goods and marine pollutants to observe a number of minimum standards.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. McLoughlin: Yes, with some trepidation.

Dr. Godman: The Minister always gives way extremely courteously. Has the Department of Transport a contingency plan to allow tankers that are in difficulty to enter sheltered waters for remedial measures to be taken? It if has, what consultations have taken place with the commercial fishermen who fish those sheltered waters?

Mr. McLoughlin: I hope to answer the hon. Gentleman's question when I reply to the debate.
The purpose of the proposed directive is to require vessels entering or leaving Community ports carrying packages of dangerous goods and marine pollutants to observe a number of minimum standards. It seeks to do that by imposing a number of rules applied to goods defined by reference to an arbitrary list of substances. The rules would require vessels carrying them to provide to the port state information that is specified in the directive; to keep in contact with coastal radio and radar stations on passage; to use pilot services; and to provide the pilot with detailed information about the ship and its officers and require him to inform the port state of any deficiencies that he encounters. The rules would also require coastal states to inform all vessels in their territorial waters of the presence of other vessels known to be carrying dangerous goods.
The Government's attitude was made clear in the explanatory memorandum. First, there is a risk that the measure, if enacted, would inhibit the free movement of ships by encouraging a trend to create pockets of different regimes of control in different parts of the world. It would create practical problems. Using figures from a 1987 research report from the European Commission,


approximately 4,000 ships would be involved at any one time, and there would be considerable difficulty in keeping track of all the information generated. The proposal to require vessels to use pilot services would be contrary to present United Kingdom law and Government policy, which leaves it to harbour authorities when considering their pilotage arrangements to take into account the hazards involved with vessels carrying dangerous goods.
We certainly want to give all possible support to proposals to enhance environmental safety, but an EC directive is not the best way to go about that. The carriage of harmful substances in packaged form by sea is regulated by international conventions on marine safety and pollution prevention. It is far more desirable for any new measures to be implemented through the International Maritime Organisation. The IMO, as hon. Members are aware, is a specialised agency of the United Nations with 134 member countries. It is a body par excellence for dealing with shipping safety and the protection of the marine environment. It has considerable reserves of expertise to call upon, and a long history of achievement.
For instance, there have been recent amendments to the safety and marine pollution conventions to include identification and listing of marine pollutants and development of detailed carriage conditions for them. There has also been agreement about the hardware and operating procedures needed for mounting rapid and co-ordinated search and rescue operations by shore authorities and ships in the immediate vicinity of any ships in distress.

Dr. Godman: What progress have the Government made in negotiations with other maritime states, on the hazardous and toxic substances convention? May I remind the Minister of the foundering in the English channel not long ago of the multivessel Perintis, which caused considerable concern to commercial fishermen who fish those waters? Does the Minister agree that negotiations undertaken under the umbrella of the IMO, on the carriage of toxic and dangerous substances, are much too slow and cumbersome and that we need directives and action to bring such dangers under control?

Mr. McLoughlin: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point. We have considerable powers when dealing with our own territorial waters, under the various controls that the Secretary of State may exercise. The hon. Gentleman referred to the Perintis. I think that I am right in saying that action was taken in that case under our existing powers. I shall check on the exact details, because I should not like to mislead the House.
I agree that dealing through the IMO can sometimes seem to take rather longer than one would wish, but it remains more sensible to try to secure international agreement than to create little pockets in which different things happen and different rules apply. Merchant shipping is by its nature an international activity. I should not want to put British ports and operators at an unfair disadvantage in relation to foreign ports and operators. We are often asked about the size of our merchant fleet, and if we started to impose more restrictions on our fleet, it would not grow as many hon. Members who have criticised its decline would wish it to grow.
It is because of the expertise of the IMO and the acceptance by the international community of the IMO that we believe that it is the right forum for such initiatives.
I must make it clear that the Government accept the principle that ships carrying packaged dangerous goods leaving or entering ports should identify themselves to the port authorities. There are already requirements for the prior notification of goods entering ports and we are sponsoring a proposal at the IMO, in conjunction with the Governments of other North sea nations, to extend them to goods leaving ports.
Hon. Members wish also to consider the Merchant Shipping (Distress Signals and Prevention of Collisions) Regulations 1989, which came into force on 19 November 1989. The 1972 international convention for preventing collisions at sea came into force in 1977. The United Kingdom is a signatory to the convention and brought it into effect in 1977. The IMO has amended the convention on two occasions. The first amendment was agreed in 1981 and was incorporated in new collision regulations in 1983. The second amendment was agreed in November 1987 and to incorporate that amendment, the 1989 regulations were made. The IMO required that they should come into force internationally on 19 November 1989, so they are in operation at the moment.
The regulations clarify certain aspects of the collision rules. They clear up anomalies in the wording of the original text and extend earlier regulations by the provision of some additional definitions. The most important changes relate to the actions of vessels using traffic separation schemes such as exist in that very busy stretch of water, the Dover strait.
I believe that the House also wishes to discuss the Merchant Shipping (Accident Investigation) Regulations. This instrument, which is made under the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, provides a framework for inquiries into all types of shipping accident, except for public inquiries, which are covered by earlier legislation. To some extent, they bring together in a single set of regulations what is already long-existing practice, but many of the provisions are new, and there was much helpful discussion in the course of their formation with representatives of all aspects of shipping operation. I believe that the regulations, in their present form, are recognised in the shipping industry generally as a valuable addition to marine legislation.
At much the same time as the regulations were being developed, the new marine accident investigation branch was coming into being, and this branch is to a large extent responsible for putting the regulations into practice. The task was previously carried out by the Department of Transport's marine directorate, which is responsible for marine safety in general, but it was decided to separate the investigatory function. That will avoid any question of conflict of interests in an inquiry, and means that a dedicated body is available to concentrate on investigations. To an extent, there is a parallel with the long-established air accident investigation branch, and as with that branch, the chief inspector reports directly to the Secretary of State. The marine accident investigation branch, although part of the Department of Transport, is entirely separate from and independent of the marine directorate.

Dr. Godman: I wish to ask the Minister an important question. When can the people of the lower Clyde expect the report to be published on the loss of the motor fishing vessel Destiny with the deaths of six men? That is an important question, because the foundering of that vessel


should be investigated by a fatal accident inquiry. I cannot make that demand to the Lord Advocate's office until an inquiry is completed by the marine accident investigation branch.

Mr. McLoughlin: I hope that I can answer the hon. Gentleman's question. I do not want to be drawn on that accident, which was tragic and moving to any person who remembers the events that weekend. I know that the hon. Gentleman paid tribute to those involved in the rescue operation. I hope that what I am about to say will go some way towards helping him to understand why it may take some time to publish the report that he wants. I shall deal first with the way in which the investigation is progressing into the Marchioness disaster on the Thames last August. For obvious reasons, we shall follow the same procedures, in the investigation that he mentioned.
Already, both the marine accident investigation branch and the regulations are being put to the test. Sadly, hon. Members will be only too well aware of the Marchioness tragedy. The regulations provide for the more serious accidents to be the subject of an inspector's inquiry, and that is considered to be the appropriate investigation in this case. The investigation is now in its final stages, but before publication of the chief inspector's report, which must include the inspector's findings and the chief inspector's recommendations, there are a number of procedures to be complied with.
The regulations require that any party whose reputation might be affected by the report must be shown it in draft form and given the opportunity to comment. If any point at issue cannot be resolved, the aggrieved party can provide an alternative text that must be set out with the report when it is submitted. Those important safeguards require a minimum of two months to allow all those concerned adequate time to respond.
I am sure that hon. Members will realise why that is done. Once the report has been issued, it will normally be made public, so it is important to give anybody who may be criticised or whose judgment may be called into question the right to have his or her say on it.
In addition, there have been several less severe but still serious accidents requiring full investigation.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I am sorry that I was not here at the beginning of the debate, but it began early. On the present assessments, what will the delay be between now and the expected conclusion of the inquiry and the reports on the Marchioness incident, bearing in mind the procedures that the Minister outlined? I know that the railway inspectorate, which is also supervised from the Minister's Department, has a similar parallel in its investigation work. What is the link between the investigation by the inspectorate and any potential prosecution by the Director of Public Prosecutions? I appreciate that the Minister may want to be careful about his answer, but it is important that people know how the work done by the inspectorate and any potential prosecutions interrelate. It would be reassuring if we could have that information by the end of the debate.

Mr. McLoughlin: We hope and expect to be able to publish the report as soon as possible, but I do not want to say too much this evening that might lead people to believe that publication is imminent because there is still

some way to go. As I have said, part of what remains to be done is that the inspector's report must go first to the chief inspector and then to the people who may or may not be criticised. Time is obviously a factor in this. Once the report is issued, consideration is given to the criminal charges that might be brought, if any are deemed necessary. I do not wish to say at the moment whether that would or would not be the case, because that is not a decision for me and it is not a decision for the chief inspector, as I understand it. However, if I am wrong I shall clarify the point later.
There have been several serious accidents requiring full investigation as well as a number of other incidents, relatively minor but still significant. The various inspectors are greatly helped in their task by the co-operation given by those concerned in those accidents; but even with that co-operation they are finding it valuable to have the backing and guidance of clearly laid down provisions as given in the regulations.
The provisions cover not only the conduct of investigations but their purpose; they set out the requirement for the reporting of accidents and the preservation of evidence. They cover the investigation of hazardous incidents—"near misses" as they are sometimes called—and they provide for the publication of reports and summaries. The aim of investigations, as set out in the regulations, is to improve safety at sea and to avoid accidents in the future. I am sure that the regulations provide a sound and practical basis for marine inquiry work for many years to come, and I hope that the House will accept them as laid down and support them tonight.

Ms. Joan Ruddock: The Opposition have sought the opportunity to discuss these two statutory instruments tonight—although, as the Minister said, they have already come into effect—because of the seriousness of the issues. On the night before the last scheduled date for this debate—9 November—there was yet another serious shipping accident. On that occasion, the passenger ferry Hamburg collided with a cargo vessel and two British people lost their lives. Last week on the Thames, another pleasure boat was hit by a barge in an accident that might have been a tragic repeat of last year's Marchionness disaster. Thankfully, it was not, but each accident raises important questions for the Minister.
We welcome the Merchant Shipping (Distress Signals and Prevention of Collisions) Regulations, because 53 per cent, of casualties on merchant vessels are caused by collisions and contacts. Moreover, it is of deep concern to us and to the National Union of Seamen that flags of convenience vessels continue to have a significantly higher accident rate than those of western flagged vessels. In the accident to which I referred earlier, the cargo vessel was the Nordic Stream. It is registered in Panama and I understand that it calls at British ports. Can the Minister tell us whether this ship has been the subject of any Department of Transport investigation in recent times and how often flags of convenience vessels are inspected in United Kingdom ports? It would also be of interest to know when we may expect publication of the Government's research into making roll-on/roll-off ferries safer—work which, I believe, was begun following the Herald of Free Enterprise disaster in 1987.
Communications between vessels is obviously important in the avoidance of collisions, and we are advised that there is a strong case for compulsory radar equipment within our estuaries. The area between Tower bridge and London bridge has witnessed 11 incidents in the past five years; a further six have occurred just along the river at King's Reach, including the fateful Marchioness collision. Just before we were due to debate this subject in the House last time, a river bus was involved in a collision, injuring 10 people. Last week, as I have already said, yet another Thames pleasure boat, this time carrying 150 teachers, was involved in a collision with a river barge in darkness. Thankfully, no one was injured, but the similarity of that incident to the Marchioness disaster raises urgent questions.
Can the Minister tell us whether the Secretary of State's six-point code, which was instigated following the Marchioness disaster, applied to these vessels? If so, was it followed and how was it enforced? If not, what lessons does the Minister expect to learn from these events?
In addition to this incident, we should note an accident in which a sand barge collided with a stationary rubbish barge only hours after the collision to which I am referring. It is no exaggeration to suggest that another fatal accident may be imminent.
As the Minister acknowledged, separation schemes in which lanes and notorious accident spots are closely monitored could play a vital role in keeping traffic flowing safely. Skippers on cargo boats on the Thames frequently complain about pleasure craft moving indiscriminately from one side of the river to the other. Does the Minister think that the time has come for formalised codes of conduct for traffic movement, rather than the present voluntary and recommended codes?
The Marchioness collision also highlighted the inadequate use of lookouts. Members of the National Union of Seamen have urged me to remind the Minister that lookouts play a crucial role in safety and navigation, irrespective of technological advances. We are therefore very disturbed to hear of a Department research project allowing ships under 1,600 gross tonnes to sail at night at sea without a lookout and with only one officer on duty. I understand that this project is currently being undertaken in the Irish sea, and I should be grateful if the Minister could confirm that and give us his comments.
With regard to the statutory instrument on accident investigation, although we support in principle a marine accident investigation branch responsible for the investigation of all types of marine accident, we are concerned, despite what the Minister said, about the composition and independence of that body. Opposition Members believe that the safety of marine transport should be removed to a truly independent safety inspectorate within a reformed Health and Safety Executive.
I take this opportunity to ask the Minister how many public inquiries have resulted from preliminary inquiries. As he knows, and as he said tonight, preliminary inquiries are mandatory; following them up with a full public inquiry is left to the discretion of the Secretary of State. The loss of the Derbyshire in 1980 resulted in the loss of 44 lives, yet it did not come to a public inquiry until seven years later. Perhaps when it is convenient the Minister could give us the figures for preliminary and public inquiries carried out in 1988, so that we can examine the point further.

Dr. Godman: With regard to the Derbyshire, there was some concern about the loss of the report into that tragic event. I wondered whether my hon. Friend intended to mention the loss of the report.

Ms. Ruddock: My hon. Friend reminds me of an important point. I had not intended to refer to it, but it has undoubtedly complicated the position and perhaps explains the considerable delay in bringing the issue into the full glare of a public inquiry.
More immediately, I should like to ask about the Government's intentions regarding the Marchioness inquiry. I am grateful for the explanations so far about procedure, but it does not take us to the point in which we are most interested, the holding of a public inquiry. We believe that such loss of life warrrants a full public inquiry.
It is salutary to note the news from Bow street today regarding the corporate manslaughter charge to be pursued against P and O in respect of the Herald of Free Enterprise disaster. Controversial though it may be, the fact is that that action would not be pursued—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. The hon. Lady is referring to a case which is sub judice. I think she understands the rules of the House. She should not refer to it further.

Ms. Ruddock: Certainly, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I gave no intention of referring to the issues in the case. I simply want to point out that charges could not have been brought had the issue not been examined at a public inquiry. It set an important precedent that the House should note.
I appeal to the Minister to use his best endeavours to persuade the Secretary of State to set up a full public inquiry into the Marchioness disaster. Nothing less will satisfy the relatives of those who died.
A further problem arises from the involvement of the Department in investigations. I take the opportunity of asking the Minister whether the practice continues whereby shipowners who are asked to co-operate in an investigation are given an assurance by the Department that it will not bring a prosecution. The Health and Safety Executive, by comparison, requires the co-operation of shipowners by law and does not have to provide them with assurances of immunity. Is that not another point in favour of removing the marine accident investigation branch from the auspices of the Department of Transport?
Moving to the European document on shipping and dangerous cargoes, we believe that the directive represents an attempt to improve existing regulations governing the movement of dangerous cargoes in and out of member state ports. Therefore, we regret the Government's decision to disregard the document in favour of relying on what might be implemented by the International Maritime Organisation. Although we recognise the valuable role of the IMO in retaining and improving standards at sea, we believe that the wholesale rejection of the directive will not help to create uniform standards for ships of member states.
The directive responds to the loopholes in previous legislation which laid down only minimum requirements for oil and chemical tankers in Community ports. The new measure would cover widespread shipments of dangerous goods, as the Minister said, in other forms such as packages, containers and mobile tankers. In bearing down


on all forms of shipment of dangerous goods, it will play a large role in the prevention and control of pollution in British waters.
Tonight we have heard the Government's three main objections. The first two—the inability to maintain constant contact and the problem of the sheer volume of traffic—are not wholly misplaced. We recognise that, in the English channel, where traffic is constant, the scope for detection and avoidance is ever-present, but the Government's response to those problems is defeatist.
The Government's third objection, involving compulsory pilotage, runs most directly counter to present United Kingdom policy and seems to be at the heart of the disagreement. I understand that United Kingdom pilotage is not compulsory in normal circumstances or to accompany ships with dangerous cargoes. My hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) argued in the Chamber on 23 October last year that the absence of a pilot could have been a contributory factor in the then recent Humber tanker collision. The use of pilots when carrying dangerous goods is a practice which the Government should encourage. When a ship is in unfamiliar waters, there is every reason to suppose that its well-being would benefit from a pilot's expert knowledge.
The Government have dismissed the compulsory use of pilots, as well as the recommendations applying to pilots. United Kingdom ships could certainly benefit from the directive because, as the tragic accident involving the Herald of Free Enterprise made clear, legislation is not strict enough and dangerous goods are shipped without being declared. In that instance, unnotified cargoes, including cyanide, were discovered when the Herald sank. If we were to follow the European proposals, a pilot on board would have to go through a safety check list which would include the identification of any dangerous cargoes. The Government could and should apply the directive's proposals to ships on which pilots are employed. That is a separate issue from whether pilots should be compulsory.
In discussion of these matters, it is important not to lose sight of the fact that there is considerable traffic in small parcels of dangerous cargoes. The National Union of Seamen has calculated that almost all ships sailing from Dover are likely to have some form of dangerous cargo on board. It believes, as we do, that higher safety standards should be sought.
As well as the objections that I have already mentioned, in the explanatory memorandum the Government made it clear that the financial implications of enforcing some of the measures weigh heavily against their implementation. We are told that the cost of compulsory pilotage and maintaining contact with coastal radio stations would have to be borne by the shipping industry. We regret the imposition of financial burdens, but they should not be allowed to deter the pursuit of greater safety. We are also told that the costs of coastal stations to inform each other of vessel movements would fall on the Department. That looks like another example of the Department shrinking from its responsibility for the maintenance and improvement of transport infrastructure. The spate of recent accidents suggests that we cannot afford to withhold spending on marine safety.
Are the Government taking any independent steps to ensure that dangerous goods are not carried unnotified on

ships? Can the Minister inform us of any alternatives to the measures in this directive? It would be useful to know how many unannounced inspections of ships for dangerous cargoes have taken place during the past five years and whether the Government plan to step up staffing levels for the inspectorate.
The Government's response to the directive has been to emphasise the proposals' negative aspect. They have failed to admit that the essence of those proposals is already embodied in United Kingdom legislation in relation to oil and chemical tankers. Therefore, they have a duty to explain why the same kind of regulations should not apply to dry cargo ships carrying dangerous goods in large and small quantities.
The European document exposes a gap in United Kingdom legislation. Although we are not uncritical enthusiasts for the European directive, it contains some useful measures which appear to have been dismissed too lightly.

Mr. Ronnie Fearn: It would appear that, in this enlightened era, all political parties support, or at least claim to support, proposals that would lead to a safer and cleaner environment. Where we differ is on how, when and at what cost we should implement proposals to achieve that aim.
The problem with the Government's aim is that it is full of fine rhetoric but has little substance and very little action. The record is not good, particularly on implementing European Community directives. The directives on the transfrontier shipment of hazardous waste were not acted on until the threat of legal action made it embarrassing for the Government not to act.
We are asked to believe that there has been a change of heart in relation to environmental issues, but unfortunately, when the Government talk about such issues, there always seems to be a caveat which goes something like, "We shall act to protect the environment, so long as such action does not interfere with the economy of the country or the profits of business." It is time that we realised that saving our environment will cost money. It will be difficult and it may create more work and administration, but it is vital for us to act. We cannot afford not to.
So I challenge the Government: if they are in earnest in their desire to create a safer environment, why not stop the trade in toxic wastes and prohibit their import? The scale of this trade and the problem that it presents should not be under-estimated. The amount of waste arriving at our ports has risen alarmingly in the past few years.

Mr. McLoughlin: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that we should stop all ships with any toxic waste coming into our ports?

Mr. Fearn: Yes. I thought that I was quite positive in the statement that I made.
The amount of waste arriving at our ports has arisen alarmingly in recent years. In 1981–82, 3,786 tonnes of toxic waste was imported into this country; by 1986–87, the amount had grown to 52,981 tonnes, as enormous increase.
This small land of ours, surrounded by seas, cannot afford to continue to allow those seas to be polluted. Southport, a thriving resort on the Irish sea, has problems because of pollution from land-based activites, including


those of Sellafield and Springfield. We do not want more pollution on top of that. Marine life vital to our own is threatened. Let us act to reduce the threat.
Let us examine ways to encourage the International Maritime Organisation and the EC to prohibit the transportation by sea of substances such as PCBs and radioactive material. If we cannot get a ban, let us quickly at least have some strict rules that would prevent the fiasco of last year when ships were travelling the high seas with highly dangerous toxic waste but nowhere to berth.
The directive is concerned with vessels carrying packaged dangerous goods, and I know that the feeling in shipping circles is similar to that which has been expressed by the Government. The Freight Transport Association believes that many of the requirements are already covered by existing law, or will be as a result of reforms being introduced by the 1MO. Those reforms are to be welcomed, but they should not preclude further measures being introduced by the EC or, for that matter, by unilateral action.
The EC directive builds on and expands the regulations, particularly in the area of pollutants, and we should welcome such moves. But there are plenty of instances where ships can carry dangerous cargo despite the rules and regulations. We should consider closing some of those loopholes if we are to continue to transport dangerous and harmful cargo either in bulk or packaged.
Relative authorities should be in a position to identify in detail any such cargo in the interest of an immediate response to accidents. The sinking of the Muree last October and the consequent washing up of canisters containing chemicals on south coast beaches may be a case in point.
I was somewhat concerned to learn from the Minister's reply to my question on 22 June 1989 that, if the marine pollution control unit decides that it is not necessary to relocate and recover drums of chemical material after an accident, no permanent record is kept. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that. We are all aware that we do not always know what materials are on board ships. How many substances have, in the past, been pronounced harmless that today are known to have devastating effects on the environment and on individual's health? I hope that the practice of not keeping permanent records will be

rectified. I also hope that, under the merchant shipping regulations, any investigation of or inquiry into an accident will be open and that the conclusions of the report will be published.
I must thank the National Union of Seamen for its briefing. Although I already had some of the information to hand, I recognise how helpful the NUS can be for future briefings. It is clear that, no matter how many restrictions we may place on the transport of dangerous goods by sea, the restrictions in themselves will not prevent accidents. We need to consider other means, such as improvement in proficiency of navigation through training of personnel and improvement in equipment and design. Perhaps we need to examine the laws of the sea and the numbers, size and speed of sea craft. Perhaps we should more closely consider the enforcement of present laws with more realistic penalties for non-compliance.
Enforcement of article 5 of the proposed directive is one of the arguments against it. I am not sure that we should so easily accept that, because something is difficult to enforce, we should not bring it into law. If we followed that argument, much that is on the statute book would not be there. On second thoughts, perhaps that might be a good thing. Surely it is good practice, and worth encouraging, that masters of ships carrying potentially dangerous cargo should maintain radio or radar contact with a coastal station. That is worth pursuing and should not be discarded, as the Minister did earlier.
The Government's explanation of their concern about the article covering pilotage is not tenable, because the EC requirements go further than the Pilotage Act 1987. This should not be a cause to rule them out. I hope that the Government's over-zealous opposition to anything that comes from Europe is not clouding their vision. If we are in earnest and wish to reduce the risk to our environment from the potential damage posed by the transportation of hazardous cargo, we should be supporting, investing in and acting on such proposed directives as the one before us today. Let us find a way of incorporating the proposals in the directive with the reforms proposed by the International Maritime Organisation. There is no reason why that should not be investigated and an incorporation brought about.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I have a few questions for the Minister concerning the documents. First, I refer to the proposal for a directive. I think that I am correct in saying that a directive does not carry the power of a regulation. I direct the Minister's attention to article 5 on page 3 of the proposal. It says that there is a need for vessels to
communicate to the competent authority in the Member State in which the port of berthing or departure is located".
Can the Minister confirm that that is precisely what happens with regard to tankers coming into Sullom Voe for cargoes, and that the Sullom Voe authorities have advance notice of the movement of such large vessels?
Article 5(iv) of the directive refers to the need of masters to avail themselves of the pilot services available. Is it not the case—I am sure that the Minister will give me a prompt answer—that the pilotage authority can demand that a vessel master employ the services of a pilot?

Mr. McLoughlin: indicated assent.

Dr. Godman: I wondered whether any disputes between the pilotage authorities and masters of ships refusing such services had come to his notice.
Article 7 says:
Pilots engaged in the berthing or departure of the vessels concerned shall immediately inform the competent authority
if they have any concerns or anxieties. Has the Department of Transport advised the pilotage authorities that, if they have any concern about the competence of crews or about the manoeuvrability of vessels, they should inform the appropriate authorities?
I move now to statutory instrument No. 1172—the Merchant Shipping (Accident Investigation) Regulations 1989. I want to put to the Minister several questions regarding the safety of fishing vessels. There will be no point in the Minister saying that the matter of fishing vessels is tangential to this debate. I remind him that fishing vessels are mentioned several times in the statutory instrument.
Are lessons that have been learnt from investigations into the stranding or foundering of vessels acted upon? I ask that question in the light of the involvement of United Kingdom-registered fishing vessels in what 1 can only describe as extremely dangerous waters. The stern fishing vessel the Gaul was lost in 1972. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) will remember this well because, sad to say, constituents of his were lost with that vessel. What lessons were learnt from that tragic loss?
I am thinking of the allocation of domestic fishing catches to United Kingdom vessels. I have written to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary is aware of my letter—warning of the dangers of inexperienced skippers fishing off the east coast of Greenland in winter.
Fishing off the west coast of Greenland at this time of the year is dangerous enough. I speak from what I might call indirect personal knowledge, as my brother Leslie is the mate of the filleter/freezer the Arctic Corsair, which at this very minute is fishing off the west coast of Greenland. Fishermen with experience of Greenland waters say that,

relatively speaking, fishing off the east coast—in the Denmark straits—is much more dangerous than fishing off the west coast.
My letter to the Minister of Agriculture stressed the need to allocate that east coast Greenland cod catch to fishermen who were experienced in those extremely hazardous waters. Hence my question about whether the results of earlier investigations are taken into account in discussions between the Department of Transport and the Ministry of Agriculture, on the safety of fishing vessels. I do not need to remind the Minister that, between 1984 and 1988, 135 United Kingdom-registered fishing vessels were lost as they went about their extremely difficult business.
Following such an investigation, has the Department of Transport ever received a strongly worded recommendation that the carriage of immersion suits in fishing vessels is an important safety measure? The Minister knows that, when his old friend Mr. Albert McQuarrie introduced his Safety at Sea Bill in 1985, I tabled a new clause on the carriage of immersion suits on fishing vessels of 10 m and above in length. That new clause was not supported by Mr. McQuarrie and others on Report, but have any of the recent investigations given rise to such a recommendation?
Some few years ago, in a February gale, rather like the one that we have suffered over the past few hours, a French trawler foundered off the west coast of Scotland. I am sure that the Under-Secretary knows the case in point. There were some 28 men on board that ship, and about 12 or 13 of them had sufficient time to don their immersion suits. The other poor souls went overboard in their underwear, roused from their bunks. The men who went overboard in their immersion suits survived for upwards of three hours before a helicopter arrived to pluck them from the heavy swell. The poor souls who went overboard without immersion suits quickly perished.
I have previously discussed with the Minister the need to carry immersion suits, and he has said that he is willing to listen sympathetically to my plea, for which I am deeply grateful. I hope that he will take my plea on board. I know that fishermen are not too keen on the carriage of immersion suits because they are expensive. I think that they cost £400 plus. French trawlers of a certain size cannot leave port unless they have immersion suits on board; the same should hold for United Kingdom-registered fishing vessels.
Regulation 2(b) of the Merchant Shipping (Accident Investigation) Regulations contains the words
a ship is lost or presumed to be lost, or is abandoned or materially damaged".
Does a fishing vessel that experiences material damage because it has scooped up in its nets debris from the offshore oil and gas industries come within that definition? If it does, would it be in order for the skipper or the owner of the vessel to ask for an inquiry into the incident?
As for regulation 2(1)(d)—a disabled ship—and regulation 2(1)(e)—any material damage having been caused by a ship—does damage caused by a ship include vessels belonging to the Royal Navy or the United States navy? I refer specifically to nuclear submarines entering and leaving the firth of Clyde. Very small fishing vessels have trawled up huge—compared with fishing vessels—nuclear submarines. It is very dangerous when two such vessels come into contact with each other.
I speak on behalf of the members of the Clyde Fishermen's Association when I ask the Minister whether


fishermen have the right under the regulations to ask for an inquiry. Even if the fishing vessel does not sink, such a collision can cause serious damage to its gear.
The regulation on page 5, headed "Reopening of Investigation", says:
The Chief Inspector may cause any investigation to be reopened".
If there were a collision between a submarine and a fishing vessel's gear, could the skipper ask for the investigation of the incident to be reopened, in the light of fresh evidence concerning the movement of naval vessels?
I have a great deal of respect for the captains and crews of nuclear submarines. I have visited Faslane and the American base at Holy Loch. The previous Secretary of State for Defence and the Minister arranged the visit, for which my colleagues and I were extremely grateful. The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie), within whose constituency the bases are located, accompanied us.
During our visit, and in subsequent correspondence with Ministers at the Ministry of Defence, I sought to establish whether the captains and crews of nuclear vessels are sufficiently familiar with the different types of fishing vessels and fishing gear to be able to take avoiding action when moving below the surface. When they are moving through fishing grounds, they ought, whenever and wherever possible—I accept that we must take account of security—travel on the surface. Their acoustic equipment is sometimes not sufficiently sophisticated, to detect certain types of fishing gear.
I put my questions to the Minister in, I hope, my usual fair-minded way. I am not here to score party political points, but, as someone who is a member of a fishing family and honorary president of the Clyde Fishermen's Association, for me these are very important questions concerning inexperienced fisherman fishing in very dangerous waters and the need to keep nuclear submarines coming in and out of the firth of Clyde away from the vessels of our inshore fisherman.
Finally, I come back to the very sad question of the sinking of the multi-fishing vessel, the Destiny. The skipper of that vessel, Billy Irvine, a man known to me, was drowned, with five other men, on that disastrous Sunday. I regret to say that their bodies have not yet been recovered. 1 know that the sinking of that vessel and the tragic death of those men are the subject of an inquiry by an inspector, but in my view the sinking poses certain questions that can be answered only by what we in Scotland call a fatal accident inquiry.
I know that this is nothing to do with the Minister, but the present investigation has a deal to do with him and his Department. I want to know when that investigation is likely to be concluded and when the report will be presented to his Department. Only then can I approach the Lord Advocate again with a formal request that he institute a fatal accident inquiry into that loss.
I have sought in this brief intervention to put to the Minister certain questions concerning this document. I think it is a useful document in some respects, although I accept the reservations of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) earlier. But the thorough, comprehensive, tough-minded investigation of the sinking of any vessel is absolutely essential, particularly in the light of the recommendations made by those who conduct those investigations, in order that, i
among other things, such founderings can in the future be reduced to the barest minimum.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I am grateful to those who have enabled us to debate these matters. I do not intend to add to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) on the "take note" motion on the European Community document. In other circumstances, I should not have been taking part in this debate. Had it not been for the fact that, coincidentally, on the morning when I was due to go on my holiday last summer, I was phoned at 2 am to be told that a boat had sunk in the Thames and that much of that week and a considerable time thereafter has been occupied in thinking through and trying to assist with the consequences of that accident, I might not have thought that this was a matter that need detain me. An accident of that severity, with the loss of life that occurred, happening literally on one's doorstep, makes one think again about such issues.
I want first to comment on what is paradoxical—although no criticism is implied—in the implementation dates of the two regulations. The Minister will be aware that the implementation date of the Merchant Shipping (Distress Signals and Prevention of Collisions) Regulations was 19 November 1989, after the Marchioness sank in the Thames. The implementation date of the Merchant Shipping (Accident Investigation) Regulations was 7 August 1989—just a matter of days before the Marchioness sank. When the Marchioness sank, the new mechanism for investigating accidents was in force, but the new tightened regulations on the avoidance of collisions were not yet in force.
I should be grateful for a response from the Minister—later, if not tonight—on whether the investigations, which I am not trying to prejudice in any way, will consider whether the new regulations that came into force in November would have made a difference had they been in force in August. I ask that for two reasons. First, as is made clear in the note that accompanies the regulations, they have brought about various changes to the rules. There is now a discretion under rule 1(e) that certain vessels need not comply fully with the general requirements concerning lights and shapes and sound-signalling appliances. There are widened exemption powers. I always worry when an international convention gives wider powers for nation states to exempt vessels from such requirements.
Secondly, the regulations amend rule 8. They add a paragraph which sets out in greater detail the duties of the vessels in so far as they are required not to impede other vessels and the duties of the vessels that are not to be impeded. That tightening of the regulations affects vessels travelling in each direction down a major waterway. Is the inquiry considering whether the amendment to rule 8 would have made any difference, had it been in force and had everyone been aware of it?

Mr. McLoughlin: The international regulations that we are discussing are intended for the high seas and navigation areas such as the Dover straits. Different regulations and byelaws apply to inland rivers. There was an interim report by the inspectorate, and we accepted the points that it raised, but it is important not to think that the international regulations that came into force on 19 November would have made any difference. I am not trying to preclude any findings by the inspectorate, and I


can assure the hon. Gentleman that the inspectorate is carrying out a most thorough investigation into that incident. Although regulations came into force on 7 August 1989, they were made on 6 July and were brought before the House well before 7 August.

Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to the Minister, but he will understand the concern that we are dealing with navigation on a tidal river such as the Thames and the amount of traffic on it, even these days. All concerned—the skippers, the crew, users of the waterway, the port of London Authority and all the passengers who use passenger, pleasure and commercial vessels—want to know that the highest international standards that apply to tidal waters anywhere, be they inland or offshore, are applied to the Thames. That is why the question whether the regulations would have made any difference is relevant. I hope that the inspectorate is addressing that issue, so that at least we can be given the reassurance that they would have made no difference or the comment that they would have made a difference.
Given that the collision regulations came into force in November, I assume that everyone concerned with navigation is aware of them, that they are being enforced and that the mechanism for doing so is in place. Obviously, people who are responsible for training and retraining will be made aware of them. I am aware of the methods by which crews are trained, but it is important that the Minister assures hon. Members that we are complying with the regulations. I am anxious that Britain does not plead for, and benefit from, exemptions, thereby reducing safety.
I have a question about regulation 3(2) of the accident investigation regulations, which says:
The Regulations apply to accidents involving or occurring on board—any United Kingdom ship except that regulation 5 shall not apply to pleasure craft".
Regulation 5 provides a duty to report accidents. I should be interested to know why regulation 5 does not apply to pleasure craft—I believe that it should.
I have a further question on regulation 9, which deals with the report that the Minister mentioned. What are the criteria for the Secretary of State to order a formal investigation under the Merchant Shipping Act 1970, which takes any investigation out of the rules set down in the regulations? What is the dividing line between an investigation under the Act, which prevents the regulations from coming into operation, and the rules?
I asked the Minister about the interrelationship between the inspector's report and prosecution. That is partly dealt with by regulation 9, which makes it clear that if, when a report is being compiled, there is any hint of a breach of the law and that prosecution should be considered, the report should not be published until that has been considered.
I have been in touch many times with the Minister of State about an investigation, and possible prosecution, by the railway inspectorate. I am not making any criticism, but I am concerned about the time lapse between accidents and inquiries. The bereaved must be assured that quick progress is being made in an investigation. Sometimes, when a thorough report is published that leads to

complicated legal questions about whether there should be a prosecution, there is a long silence and it appears that the authorities are not taking action.
I agree with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) that it is important that the inspectorate should not be timid about prosecutions. I am not saying that the crew of the Bow Belle or the skipper of the Marchioness were to blame—that is not for me or the House—but there is a provision in English law whereby, if people are criminally negligent, they should be liable to prosecution.
I heard your intervention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in the speech of the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock), so I do not propose to say any more about the Herald of Free Enterprise case, except to reaffirm that the fact that a legal process is available and that people can be prosecuted should require us to consider whether there has been criminal negligence in any case involving death. It is important to do so, because those in charge must be accountable.
I welcome the change in regulation 9(4), which allows comment by interested parties. I also welcome the fact that the chief inspector can issue information during an investigation. I told the Secretary of State that I welcomed the interim report on the Marchioness. I compliment and thank the Secretary of State and the Minister of State for acting promptly. They acted reassuringly. I understand that they must await the final report before taking any further decisions. I also welcome the fact that summaries of the report can and will be made available to anyone with a legitimate interest.
I am concerned, however, that a spot check investigation of some vessels on the Thames carried out by the Evening Standard a matter of weeks ago apparently revealed—I relate this to the Minister so that he can make departmental inquiries—that some of the requirements made by the Secretary of State after the sinking of the Marchioness were still not being complied with. It is not for me to judge whether that is true, but it is vital that we should have the most stringent safety measures for the prevention of collisions and for the reporting and investigation of accidents and that they should be enforced properly. As Opposition Members often say, if more people should be put in post to enforce safety requirements, we must put more people in post. No price can be too high to pay for employing as many people as necessary to ensure that the highest safety standards are in force.
The lesson that I have learnt from the sinking of the Marchioness is that, in spite of the general good conduct and great experience of many of those involved, we were not doing the absolute maximum that could be done to avoid an accident. I hope that the new regulations and enforcement measures will prevent such accidents in future.

Mr. McLoughlin: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
This has been a useful debate. I shall do my best to answer most of the questions that have been asked, but I may need to write to hon. Members on some. I hope that hon. Members will understand that some of the matters


raised were fairly technical and that, rather than give a false impression tonight, I should like to take the time to find out the correct answers.
The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) referred to the Perintis. In an Adjournment debate initiated by the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) on 23 October 1989, I referred to that incident, and as it is important that the House should be aware of our powers to deal with such incidents, I propose to quote what I said on that occasion:
In an incident threatening grave or imminent pollution we shall not hesitate to use those powers if need be. This was demonstrated in March of this year when a small Panamanian-registered, Indonesian-owned ship, the Perintis, capsised and sank in international waters in the middle of the English channel, about 35 miles south-east of Brixham.
I hope that the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) will take note of that important point, because a ban on all ships coming into British ports would not solve the problem of incidents in international waters that may nevertheless threaten our coastline.
I continued:
The vessel had a quantity of toxic pesticides on board and the expert advice to the marine pollution control unit was that the chemicals posed a major pollution threat to the marine environment and to United Kingdom fishery interests in particular. The owner of the vessel was not intending to do anything about the chemicals, and accordingly the Secretary of State authorised the MPCU to take direct action to recover the drums of pesticide which were scattered over the sea bed when the vessel capsised. Later, 28 of the 32 drums of toxic chemicals were successfully recovered. Tests showed that they had a much lower rate of solubility in sea water than first feared and scientific advice was that a continued search for the remaining drums was not therefore justified.
The Governments response on that occasion shows that we are conscious of the environmental hazards posed by the loss of dangerous goods being transported by sea, and we are ready to take action where it is practicable to do so."—[Official Report, 23 October 1989; Vol. 158, c. 639.]
It is important to emphasise that, as some may too easily think that our attitude is rather laid back and lackadaisical. It is not.
Let me deal with what the hon. Member for Southport said. To believe that we could ban or stop all ships carrying dangerous or chemical cargo coming into British ports is to live in cloud cuckoo land. If that were the policy of Liberal Members, I wonder what they would do in the North sea. Oil is a dangerous cargo. If it is spilt, it has immense environmental consequences on a coastline. Would Liberal party stop any oil tankers coming to the North sea because of the possible damage to the environment? Of course they would not.

Mr. Fearn: That applies only to toxic waste.

Mr. McLoughlin: They have refined their policy now. Before, they said dangerous waste, but they have refined it to toxic waste. Perhaps they should consider more carefully what they say before they give categorical assurances.
Among other things, the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) asked about research into roll-on roll-off ferries. It is due to be published soon. We hope that once it is published we shall have a full discussion with the architects, the industry, the National Union of Seamen and other interested bodies.
The hon. Lady also asked about inspection of vessels. At present, we inspect about 25 per cent., of vessels, which is what we are required to do. We inspect all types of vessels which come into our ports.
No decision has yet been made on a public inquiry into the loss of the Marchioness. The inspector's inquiry by the investigation branch is still in progress, and a decision will be taken when it is completed. I hope that that will be in the near future, but I explained earlier some of the natural delays that will take place. It is not that we are simply waiting for the report. We must give the people who may be criticised in the report time to respond and to include their comments in it.

Mr. John Prescott: The inquiry is important. Conservative and Opposition Members wish to impress on the Minister the fact that if the inquiry shows that blame can be apportioned, to several people, as will probably be the case, relatives and many hon. Members want a public inquiry to follow. We cannot impress it too much on the Minister that that should be taken into account when a decision is made by the Secretary of State for Transport.

Mr. McLoughlin: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. I shall not say any more, because I do not want to prejudice the outcome of the inquiry. I am sure that the House will understand that, if I said more, I might be in danger of doing that, I have not seen the report, but it would be dangerous if I gave the impression that I had some idea of what it contained.
Action has already been taken as a result of the Marchioness disaster. Six recommendations in the interim report identified shortcomings. If further shortcomings in the collision regulations are shown up, we shall take them up with the IMO and make further amendments. We can apply for byelaws to cover regulations on the Thames.
The hon. Lady referred to the collision last week between the Mayflower Garden and a barge. That is being investigated by the marine accident investigation branch and the Port of London Authority. However, the scale of that accident is not the same as that of the Marchioness tragedy.
The hon. Lady said that the MAIB should be made a separate body. I cannot help thinking that that is a response to her party's policy in the 1970s when the Department of Transport sponsored the industry. There: is a difference between setting out the regulations and expecting independent owners to abide by and accept them. That is the difference. We do not own any boats or aircraft. However, we will act whenever the investigation branches give us sound advice on safety matters that need to be looked into. Therefore, we do not accept that there is any necessity to split these functions away from the Department.
As I am running a little short of time, I shall be unable to answer as many of the points that have been made as I should have liked. I shall try to deal with as many points as possibly generally, instead of dealing with those raised by each hon. Member in turn.
We do not accept the need for a blanket imposition of compulsory pilotage irrespective of the views of the harbour authorities. In any event, that could be applied only when a vessel was within United Kingdom territorial waters. We have no jurisdiction to support the extension of compulsory pilotage outside such waters, and we therefore believe that to leave the decision to the harbour authorities, which can rightly say whether pilotage is necessary, is the best way to move forward.
In response to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow, I should say that, if a pilot saw or felt that something was definitely wrong, he should draw that to the attention of the port control authorities and, if it was felt necessary and desirable, an inspection would ensue. One has to rely on the good sense of the pilot, who might not have specific technical qualifications but who would have the knowledge of the waterways.
It has been said that we are not implementing the directive because of the cost. That is certainly not the case because no detailed costing has been carried out. It is doubtful whether any meaningful figure could be arrived at. As I said, even on the European Commission's own research, it is estimated that 4,000 ships might be required. As that relates only to the United Kingdom's coastal waters, we are talking about an incredible and technical job which would be fairly unmanageable. That is one reason why we are not sure about the practicalities of implementing some of the provisions of the directive.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) asked why pleasure craft are excluded from the provisions. The regulations extend to fishing vessels and pleasure craft, except that pleasure craft are not required to report accidents. That is because many of them are small yachts and are susceptible to minor incidents, and it would not be practicable to insist that they report all accidents. Obviously, if there is a major accident or if something is drawn to his attention, the inspector can investigate it and report on it if necessary.
I was grateful that one of the Defence Ministers joined me on the Treasury Bench during the debate and was able to put me right on some of the points made by the hon.

Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow about the problem of fishing vessels sometimes getting their nets caught on Royal Navy equipment. I am advised that any complaints made are investigated fully and that compensation is payable. In the light of what the hon. Gentleman said, I shall of course check how the regulations require those affected to register their case.
This has been a useful debate. There is general agreement about the marine accident investigation branch. We place a high regard on environmental protection in relation to our shipping industry. When something goes wrong, it is at great cost to the shipping industry and, if a captain is involved in a collision, he loses part of his standing. Obviously, nobody on the high seas wants to be involved in any sort of collision. As has rightly been said, fatal accident investigations are matters solely for the . discretion of the Law Officers in Scotland.
I hope that the report does not take too long, but I cannot and would not like to say. I do not want to rush the report. It relates to a completely different kind of accident from that involving the Marchioness, so perhaps we shall not have to wait too long, but I cannot give any assurances about exactly when the report will be available. I hope that it will be as soon as possible.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 7074/89 relating to requirements for vessels carrying packaged dangerous goods when using Community ports; considers that Community legislation does not represent the most appropriate means of securing the development of effective provisions to enhance environmental safety in this area; and endorses the Government's view that any new measures should be adopted and implemented on a wider international basis through the International Maritime Organisation.

Orders of the Day — Waste Dumping (North Sea)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Greg Knight.]

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I am very glad to have the opportunity to debate in the House the issue of the dumping of waste in the North sea. 1 make no bones about it: as far as I am concerned, the purpose of this debate is to continue to bring pressure on the Government to put an end to this filthy British habit of dumping industrial and chemical waste in the North sea. The immediate precursor of this debate is probably the incidents last week when the Greenpeace ship Sirius attempted to stop the dumping of fly ash by the Central Electricity Generating Board off the north-east coast of England—and it did for a short time disrupt that process.
Much more to the point, the action highlighted what was going on, not only with the dumping of fly ash but also in the licences that were still in force and the new applications being considered and made by the British Government for the dumping of chemical waste in the North sea. There were at that time three applications for licences outstanding, and a fourth application has been submitted this week.
Those licences have drawn the fury of the other countries around the North sea who are signatories to the Oslo Commission and the North sea anti-dumping agreement. Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Holland have all said that they do not accept the prior justification arguments put forward by the British Government, that inadequate information has been provided and that no case has been made that either these materials are harmless or that there is no adequate alternative method of disposal—the prime considerations of the prior justification procedure.
I have seen the letters submitted by several of those Governments and they contain the nub of the argument. For example, the Swedish objection says:
In our view the proposed dumping of industrial waste, MAFF/DAS752, is not in accordance with the decision taken by the commission in 1989 … According to your report there also seem to be alternative synthesis routes available, routes that other producers have found practicable and economically feasible.
The Dutch Government have gone somewhat further and said:
As indicated in Berlin and Ghent it is very difficult to assess the availability of alternatives if so little detailed information is given. The present information is more detailed, in comparison with the data submitted in Berlin. Nevertheless the level of detail is still not sufficient to enable outsiders to assess and to advise on possible alternatives.… The documentation of no alternative treatment is very poor and it is therefore difficult to accept the conclusion.
Norway, on behalf of the Oslo Commission, has asked for an urgent meeting to discuss Britain's continuing dumping of waste in the North sea.

Mr. Neville Trotter: rose—

Mr. Bruce: I have very little time.
This, I understand, is to take place on 14 February in London, but the Minister will no doubt tell us when he replies. My understanding is that the Government intend to maintain a robust line, defending their position.
I have also been advised that the application by Fisons, who wanted to dump 4,000 tonnes of waste from Intal

allergy/asthma medicine, has been withdrawn by the company, fundamentally because of the adverse public reaction, and presumably the judgment that it is not good for the company's image to be associated with that kind of dumping. Sterling Organics still wants to dump 42,000 tonnes of waste from paracetemol. I understand that it is para-aminophenol, which is known to be toxic. Orsynthetics wants to dump 3,000 tonnes of waste from the production of ortholybignanide.
In addition, Fine Organics has apparently, through the British Government, applied for a licence, for which prior justification is sought by the British Government, to dump 8,000 tonnes of chemical waste. I am told that the waste is mostly alcohol, which has a very high oxygen demand and is likely to have a negative effect on marine environment.
The important point is that the British Government's line tends to be, "We have no evidence that these substances are harmful. They are diluted and dispersed. Therefore, we should dump them." My challenge to the Government is, is it not high time, in the changing circumstances and with the pressure from other countries, to presume that substances which are certainly not beneficial or naturally occurring in the North sea should not be dumped where they cannot be monitored and where the consequences cannot be determined? The Government should consider whether there are other means of disposal which allow for proper monitoring and control.
That raises another factor—whether adequate monitoring takes place of the dump sites in the North sea. The evidence is that the Department has inadequate resources to conduct monitoring satisfactorily, and that we are continuing to dump without knowing the consequences.
Another question that arises is whether these companies, and presumably other companies which operate under licences, were told of the implications of the North sea agreement. Were they given an indication that dumping was to end and that they should be looking for alternatives, or were they told nothing? Worse still, were they told not to worry, that the Government, under the prior justification procedure, would ensure that they could carry on dumping, and that this was simply a fig leaf to give the impression that Britain had taken an initiative to advance the limitation of dumping in the North sea, when in reality it was attempting to get out of the commitment? I am afraid that that is becoming increasingly the way the British Government choose to operate—claiming rhetorically that a great deal is being done to advance environmental protection, when they are actually trying to find methods of escaping their obligations.
Indeed, through the Environmental Protection Bill, the Government are seeking to write the prior justification procedure into the law. For those who might not appreciate the implications, it might look good in the Bill but, far from tightening the law, the Government are trying to give a new reinforcement to their unilateral action, which has been roundly condemned in many parts of Europe.
The evidence of waste build-up in the North sea justifies concern. A report in August 1988 states:
A joint monitoring programme carried out by the North Sea states under the aegis of the Oslo and Paris Commissions has shown that concentrations of mercury, cadmium and polychlorinated biphenyls"—
mostly from sewage sludge—
in coastal waters have declined less rapidly than have pollutant loads, but that pollution levels are at worst stable and at best falling slowly in virtually every area.


So there is no justification for carrying on a process that all other countries have recognised should end, and have ended.
The position gets worse. The countries in the Oslo Commission are also trying to tighten the controls on the dumping of sewage sludge. Britain is the worst offender. There are two draft final declarations for the third North sea conference in March this year. One states that the objective as regards the disposal of sewage sludge in the North sea should be

"(a) to monitor and review dumping operations with regard to paragraph 21 of the London Declaration with a view to adopting land based means of disposal whenever this becomes a practicable alternative;
(b) to continue their efforts to reduce the contamination of such sludges by materials that are persistent, toxic or liable to bioaccumulate, so that they pose no hazard to the marine environment and to ensure that the quantities of such contaminants disposed to sea by this pathway in the immediate future do not increase"

above 1987 levels.
That is the British Government's submission. Let us compare that with the submission of the Federal Republic of Germany, supported by most other countries:
(a) to gradually reduce the dumping of sewage sludge in the North sea, aiming at a termination within a transitional period"—
of five years—
(b) to launch as soon as possible a programme to achieve such a reduction".
In other words, there is a clear, unequivocal objective to put a stop to the process, but the British Government will not sign it. We have tabled an alternative, which effectively would allow us to carry on dumping.
Interestingly, the Government complain about their image. The Guardian, on 6 December 1989 reported the Secretary of State for the Environment as saying:
I am tired of seeing the UK pilloried as the dirty man of Europe. That tag is simply not accurate.
The Government do not have the slightest chance of getting rid of that tag as long as they carry on with such actions. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food cannot state, as he did in his written answer of 4 December:
The United Kingdom is fully meeting international agreements reached unanimously by the North sea countries."—[Official Report, 4 December 1989; Vol. 163, c.104.]
Ours is the only country that believes that to be true. Every other signatory is protesting vehemently about our interpretation of the treaty. To blame Germany for polluting the North sea through its rivers is not a relevant response.
The Government are certainly in spirit, and possibly even in the letter, flouting the agreement to stop dumping chemical industrial wastes in the North sea. In so doing, they are becoming the biggest threat to marine life and the total ecosystem of the North sea as far as Britain is responsible for it.
The evidence may not be automatically connected, but once-common seals are dying in their hundreds, dolphins are fighting for their very existence and fish stocks are falling disastrously, with appalling economic consequences for fishing communities, especially in Scotland. The Government's response to the problem is to carry on dumping, because they say that there is no evidence that what they are doing is harmful and they do not intend to

comply with what every other member state expects them to do. While every other country has stopped waste dumping, Britain carries on. The Government say that it is harmless and there is no risk—they should tell that to the marine environment.
Britain alone continues to dump sewage sludge—3·5 million tonnes was dumped in 1989, contaminated with heavy metals. The Government say that that poses no risk. Britain continues to incinerate 90,000 tonnes of highly toxic waste off the coast of Scarborough every year, and claims that that is harmless. No wonder the other nations around the North sea are outraged by Britain's cynacism in allowing 22 dumping licences to continue in operation, with one more being sought. Among its neighbours, Britain is simply becoming an environmental outcast.
The fly ash dumping, although not the subject of the complaint, is a real issue, because it suffocates marine life. It sets like concrete on the sea bed and sterilises that area. Some 98·5 per cent, of all fly ash is disposed of in other ways, so it is ludicrous to suggest that there is no other way of doing so. A local company, Thermalite, in the north-east of England, has said that it could have taken it all and coverted it to breeze blocks. Fly ash dumping, therefore, should come to an end.
The objections which have come from the Nordic countries and Holland not only require answer at the Oslo Commission, but the matter is to be debated at the European Parliament, by its environment committee on 1 and 2 February. The German Government have called for a stop, and Mrs. Maji-Waggen, the Dutch Minister of Public Works and Transport, who will chair the next North sea conference in March, has called Britain's explanations unsatisfactory and said that Britain appears to stick to procedures, not agreements. We hail our agreement as a great breakthrough and then cop out on the technicalities afterwards.
The North sea is becoming seriously polluted. The information may not be fully available and may be disputed, but it is no longer justified to go on adding to a problem which we have not yet learnt how to tackle and solve.
The Secretary of State for the Environment should be ashamed of himself. It is not his Department that issues these licences .or answers this debate. He should get a grip on the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to make it stop its filthy habits. He should ensure that, if Britain is to take a lead on environmental issues, it honours the obligations that it has signed, not just in the letter, but in the spirit.
He should ensure that it puts pressure—this is an important point—on companies to recognise that they cannot rely on cheap dumping of waste at sea, but must find ways of reducing the waste, recycling material and developing the best techniques to ensure that waste is handled well, minimised and, when disposed of, done so in a way that can be seen to be least harmful and most effectively monitored.
Companies must not be allowed simply to toss waste
into the environment, without any possibility of retrieval, effective monitoring and seeming to say, in a cavalier manner, "We do not believe it is harmful, so we do not propose to stop it." That is against the evidence of all the marine life in the North sea, which is facing a fight for its very survival.
The Government rightly stand condemned, and they will not be able to clean up their act until they ensure that British industry cleans up its act and stops the filthy habit of dumping rubbish in our North sea.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Curry): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) for raising this subject, albeit in a frantic sort of way. I found some of his remarks rather bizarre. The idea that fish stocks have declined principally because of pollution is daft. They have declined basically because of over-fishing. When that has ceased and there has been restraint—for example, in herring—the stocks have come back very strongly indeed.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned incineration. He failed to mention that the United Kingdom incinerates less than 5 per cent, of the total amount and that it is all done aboard a Dutch ship, which is presumably registered by the Dutch Minister to whom he referred. Many of his remarks in that context bore the same hallmark of a sort of frantic objection without looking at the facts of the case. He is anxious to paint us as the villain of the North sea, but I decline that mantle of villainy.
I should make clearly at the outset an essential point. The Government fully endorse the objective of stopping the dumping of liquid industrial waste, so there is no difference between us on that. We are committed to stopping it at the earliest practicable date, and where we differ appears to be on those practicabilities. Our position is clear-cut: we shall terminate the licences as soon as safe alternatives of disposal are available on land.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Really!

Mr. Curry: If the hon. Gentleman, who has spoken at length on other matters earlier tonight, will listen to me, he will hear that I have figures to sustain the point that I am making.
It might be helpful if I were to distinguish the various categories of dumping at sea which we license. The hon. Member for Gordon referred to industrial waste. There are certain categories of waste which nobody has the intention of phasing out in dumping at sea. For example, there is dredged spoil. Most companies dump that at sea, because disposal on land can be difficult. Most North sea countries dump dredged spoil in their inshore waters. There is no question of a ban on dumping at sea in general by anybody; nobody has suggested that.
There is sewage sludge, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Then there is the industrial waste in its solid and liquid form. The North sea conference declaration exempted inert material, of which minestone is the only one being dumped to any degree, from its controls. For the other industrial wastes, the declaration envisages that dumping will stop. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the North sea conference is made up of the eight North sea riparian states, and covers all means of polluting the sea.
We do not for a minute believe that we are in breach of the international commitment that we accepted in that declaration. It is not the case that there was to be a complete ban on the dumping of industrial waste from the end of 1989. The ministerial declaration stated that the dumping of industrial waste in the North sea should be

phased out by the end of December 1989, except for inert materials of natural origin or other materials which could be shown to the competent international organisation to cause no harm in the marine environment.
It was also agreed as a matter of principle that waste should not be dumped unless there were no practical alternatives on land. Indeed, the Oslo Commission, at the request of the North sea conference, specifically developed a procedure for licensing industrial waste after 1989, and through that we are required to demonstrate that particular wastes cause no harm in the marine environment and that there are no practical alternatives for dumping the wastes on land. That is the procedure that we are now following.
The special meeting to which the hon. Gentleman referred—it was requested by the Swedes, Norwegians and Danes—will take place on 14 February. Objections came from those three countries and from the Netherlands, and informal objection came from Germany. Seven members have not so far registered any objection.
We are committed to phasing out the dumping of liquid industrial wastes. We are not licensing new wastes. We are requiring exising licensees to take all necessary steps to stop the dumping at the earliest possible time. Any suggestion that my Department is somehow giving the nod and the wink to companies, saying, "Don't worry chaps, go ahead, we will make it possible for you to do it," could not be further from the truth.
We are making good progress. There were more than 100 liquid industrial licences in 1980. By the time of the second North sea conference, that figure was down to 20. Between the second North sea conference and the end of last year, we got rid of more than half of those. Last week, I announced that Fisons would not receive a licence in 1990 because an alternative method of disposal appeared practicable. That leaves eight liquid industrial waste licences. More will go during 1990, and virtually all the remainder by the end of 1991. By that date, there will be virtually no licences. There may be the odd exception, and I shall refer to that later.
I want the practicalities to be understood. Disposal arrangements on land can not be set up overnight, and research will be needed into appropriate methods of treatment. We want recycling or re-use of waste to be considered. When a method is found, it must be engineered, an investment made and the plans tested. Immediate termination of sea disposal could be done only if environmentally risky disposal methods on land were used, and we do not intend to breach our established environmental guidelines and risk harm on land.
The only alternative is to stop production, and that is not a practical course. For example, Tate and Lyle dumps certain products. It refines sugar from the Commonwealth countries, and there has been a great deal of debate about the company. It is not a practical option to say, "Let us not have the product; then we can get away from the manifestation of it." It is more sensible to drive forward in our search for alternatives, so that in a short time we can say that dumping at sea is no longer necessary. That is the policy of my Department, and I have cited figures to show the determination with which we are pursuing it.

Mr. Trotter: Unfortunately there is an image, fostered by some of the campaigners, that the position is new and


becoming worse. In fact, it has existed for decades and is becoming better. Will my hon. Friend spell out the Government's determination that dumping will cease?

Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend represents a north-east constituency where these matters are important. I say without equivocation that it is the Government's policy to bring to an end the dumping of industrial waste at sea. We intend to drive forward with that policy and expect that, within two years, there will be virtually no dumping—although there may be the odd exception where limited dumping will be permitted.
The wastes do not cause harm in the sea. It is all too easy to refer to "toxic" chemical wastes—if they were toxic, we would not issue a licence. Some of the wastes are acid or alkaline, and when they enter the sea a chemical reaction takes place and the wastes are neutralised into salts and water. The salts concerned are already present in the sea in large quantities. There are also trace elements in the wastes.
It is not the case that there are large quantities of heavy metals. In fact, metals are naturally present in the sea, as I know the hon. Member for Gordon appreciates. Often, no metals are detectable in the waste. There are some organic substances that biodegrade rapidly. After five minutes in the water, the phenol in the waste is at a concentration of about one thousandth of that used in a mouth gargle. The sugar refining waste is composed only of chalk and materials that were approved for food production use.
Each waste that we licence has been thoroughly scrutinised, and we know exactly what it contains. We also know how it will behave in the sea. We have carried out monitoring work, and licence-holders have carried out their own programmes. We have published the results of our work. We also have a substantial annual monitoring programme for contaminants in fish and shellfish in our waters. The results are also published. They show that contaminants concentrations in fish taken from areas used for dumping are no higher than for other areas.
I know that the hon. Member for Gordon and my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) have a special interest in fly ash. That waste is covered by the same North sea conference rules as liquid industrial waste. There are two dump sites off the north-east coast of England, which serve three power stations. National Power has carried out studies of alternative options for disposal and is now urgently working on detailed proposals—with more than encouragement from my Department.
If there is a market for re-use of the fly ash, it will no doubt wish to re-use it, and I shall draw the company's attention to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Gordon that there is a potential customer for the product. That will be good news, if it is substantiated. However, markets cannot be generated out of thin air. If the company has to dispose of the waste on land, this will have its own environmental problems. My hon. Friend will appreciate that, if it comes to applications for permission to build dump sites on the land or to put waste down holes, there will clearly be problems. There will be objections from local communities. There is no easy solution in the case of a product like this, which everybody agrees is not simply going to go away.

Mr. Trotter: I accept what the Minister says. Obviously there are very considerable difficulties in finding a land solution. But it is a fact that every other power station in the country found such a solution, and one will have to be found for these power stations in the north-east.

Mr. Curry: I have drawn precisely that point to the attention of National Power in relation to these power stations, as an encouragement to it to make even greater efforts to find an alternative solution. National Power will have to address these arguments effectively. We shall not extend the licence until it is absolutely necessary and until we are convinced that a genuine search for alternatives is being undertaken by the company.
It is suggested that our licensed dumping is harming the marine environment. Let me just put this matter in context. Dumping on this site began in the early 1960s—well before there were licence controls at all. We have actually reduced the area that may be used for dumping. Dumping may now be carried out only on an area already smothered by unlicensed dumping.
I do not dispute the smothering effect of the product—I do not dispute the chemistry of the process—but I must insist that we are very restrictive about where it is allowed to be dumped. Before licensing was introduced, it was already taking place. The licensed area is rather smaller, and our monitoring shows that areas of the sea bed that were once dumped upon, but are no longer, are now recovering and regenerating.
Many North sea countries dump dredged spoil, which has a smothering effect. There is no proposal to ban dredged spoil disposal at sea. The concern expressed by other North sea countries relates to their concern that fly ash might be toxic in the sea. This is not the case. Indeed, delay in recovery of the areas affected by fly ash can probably be put down to the fact that the material is so inert. We shall shortly be submitting a paper to the Oslo Commission as required by these procedures. This will give the evidence for our position that this waste is harmless.
As for dredged materials, we must not forget that the bulk of dumping at sea is carried out by North sea countries and consists of disposal of the spoil dredged from ports and navigations in order to keep shipping lanes open. But dumping of dredged spoil is also kept under strict controls. There are Oslo Commission guidelines, which the United Kingdom played a leading role in developing, and we are pleased that other countries have been able to agree to conform to these guidelines.
Minestone is not covered by the North sea conference rules. However, it is our policy that dumping of minestone at sea should also be terminated as soon as possible. This will not be easy. A number of reviews have been carried out of possible land disposal options for minestone. Nevertheless, we are continuing to press for land disposal options to be thoroughly examined.
Let me make the Government's position absolutely clear. We accept that dumping of these products at sea will have to cease. With our conference signature, we undertook quite clearly that we would work as rapidly as practicable towards that objective. Within the last few minutes, I have quoted figures to show that we have made rapid progress towards that end.
I have also said that, within the next two years, there will be virtually no necessity to continue dumping. The principal exception that I have in mind is, as the hon. Member will be aware, that ICI is investing £30 million in


a plant to dispose alternatively of some of its wastes, and the construction of that plant may go a little beyond the deadline to which I have been referring.
Where we are convinced that there is an alternative, we will not be prepared to give a licence. The reason for the refusal to renew the Fisons licence was that our investigations suggested that there was an alternative. If one looks at the number of companies involved and at the products being disposed of, one will find that, in many cases, the alternative that appears to be the most practical is to treat the product so that it is purified to the degree at which it can go into the sewage treatment works.
From the list of possibilities in front of me, it is quite clear that that is one of the major options where a product is more bulky. Drying and use for, say, road building is a real possibility. Various forms of recycling is feasible. So,

we are not talking about an enormous time scale: we are talking about measures that are feasible, with investment, engineering and determination. My Department is determined to see that those things come together.
I am sure that we can look the other members of the North sea conference in the face, because we have made extremely rapid progress. That progress has been substantial. My Department, far from conniving in the practice, as the hon. Gentleman seemed to imply, is the driving force in getting rid of the practice. We agree with the tide of public opinion that thinks that it should stop, and we intend to promote that end.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes to Twelve o'clock.